Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[StateBoiler]

Some 3D chess here, but if I'm Poland I make a formal request from the EU for a small military deployment in light of actions on our border from Belarus:

Macron wants an EU-wide strengthening of European defense post-Australians killing the submarine defense contract and AUKUS completely reformatting the Indo-Pacific/U.S. defense relationships. The Eastern Europeans don't buy that the EU are serious on defense. This would serve as a put up or shut up question to Western and Central Europe. If a real deployment is accepted and western/central states' troops are deployed, this shows the Russians the Europeans are serious about standing up for their eastern members which is a positive for all of them. If they punt or offer only something token that does nothing, the Poles and other vulnerable Eastern European states will know the EU is nothing geopolitically and to only focus on their NATO (read: American) relationship.

[StateBoiler]

Some 3D chess here, but if I'm Poland I make a formal request from the EU for a small military deployment in light of actions on our border from Belarus:

Macron wants an EU-wide strengthening of European defense post-Australians killing the submarine defense contract and AUKUS completely reformatting the Indo-Pacific/U.S. defense relationships. The Eastern Europeans don't buy that the EU are serious on defense. This would serve as a put up or shut up question to Western and Central Europe. If a real deployment is accepted and western/central states' troops are deployed, this shows the Russians the Europeans are serious about standing up for their eastern members which is a positive for all of them. If they punt or offer only something token that does nothing, the Poles and other vulnerable Eastern European states will know the EU is nothing geopolitically and to only focus on their NATO (read: American) relationship.

To do what exactly? You want French military to fight illegal immigrants?

Broader security while getting continental buy-in.

Moreover, Poland gov doesn't want to look weak begging for help.[/quote]

It's not weakness inasmuch of they're there for security if Russia's about to launch a broader conflict on Ukrainian soil.

[StateBoiler]

If this is something, why is the West just talking of hey, our ally is going to get invaded in a month plus or minus a couple weeks?

Russia is obviously doing gunboat diplomacy, but what is everyone else doing?

[StateBoiler]

If something does happen, there won't be an all-out war. Russia will just officially incorporate the 2 breakaway regions and that's it.

I don't think they are interested in any regions where there's no Russian majority.

Perhaps, but getting from Point A to Point B there is quite complicated.

[StateBoiler]

Stoltenberg announced yesterday NATO/the West would effectively punt if the Russians did anything. All giving military material aid to the Ukrainians would accomplish is increase casualties on both sides and the Russians would still win. So what was the grand threat from Stoltenberg? Economic sanctions.

I think the Russians are still on economic sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago so these must be double serious economic sanctions! (How many times does it need to be proven sanctions do little?)

So right now the ball is in Russia's court. If they choose to invade, the West have acknowledged they'll do nothing of material value and the Russians will win the conflict accomplishing whatever their military arms are. No one thinks the Ukrainians will win a straight up fight, not even the Ukrainians. So the choice hinges on whatever gets offered diplomatically to the Russians and if they decide to accept or not.

Lavrov rebutted to everything surrounding Ukraine by saying there's NATO troops now in Poland and the Baltics, so they may be trying to frame this Cuban Missile Crisis-ish, minus the nukes, of "withdraw your troops in Poland and the Baltics and we'll withdraw our troops surrounding Ukraine". The problem with that frame of negotiation if that's the case is the Cuban Missile Crisis was a one-on-one negotiation. I don't see Poland and the Baltics agreeing to being sold out marginalizing their defense.

[StateBoiler]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

[StateBoiler]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

But what is the alternative? The US eternally pursuing war with the rest of the world in pursuit of total hegemony - the neocon dream - is now widely despised (even there) and totally discredited.

There is no alternative. This is the tragedy of classical liberalism: everyone believes in it but no one is going to fight for it. If the West is not going to lift a finger to do anything, that's the world we're heading for is a more authoritarian and "might makes right" one where human rights are irrelevant, military conflicts will occur more frequently, the post-World War II order of "conflicts for territory are not okay" completely disintegrates, and the UN might as well dissolve.

The effect of Crimea 2014 on where the world is at from a geopolitical mindset and how much it pushed the world away from the post-World War II mindset cannot be understated.

Soft power is indeed strong if used effectively, but hard power will beat soft power most every time. So if you have states unwilling to use hard power, regardless of their size or finances, every state in not guns shooting conflict with them just knows if they go to hard power or risk hard power, it helps them in negotiations win against the states unwilling to use hard power.

[StateBoiler]

Now an invasion still might be worth it if 1) you think a West-aligned Ukraine is a truly existential threat to Russian security,...

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

You have to look at this from the point of view of the Kremlin leadership and whatever their goals are if you wish to understand Russian decisionmaking. You can't look at it from your own personal point of view and hope to understand what is going to happen, even if you think the Russians are wrongheaded.

Russians post-Soviet era have the impression of once they were defeated, NATO is yet still trying to practice encirclement. Yeltsin even complained about NATO moving eastward. NATO is from the viewpoint of the Russians an existential threat because NATO is first and foremost an anti-Russian defense conglomeration. There's no civilian purpose to NATO's existence. So if Ukraine joins NATO, then that's another border point Russia has to defend against. It's why North Korea will probably never just be allowed to join with South Korea and maybe even why the state continues to exist: the Chinese are not going to accept a border with a U.S. ally, North Korea's a buffer. Right now in Donbass the Russians have a de facto buffer.

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1468620348941811712?t=-Yn7k3r_Th4G6TuiqGHXfA&a...

"The idea that the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now"

This is answering a question no one is asking. Unilateral means we're going it alone. Well, the event of us using force would (I hope) be at Ukrainian invitation to help them defend their country, which means it would automatically not be unilateral.

"Adds that U.S. involvement in Ukraine will depend on what other NATO countries are doing."

Based on historical practice, they'll all sit around the table and wait to find out what we're doing.

My educated guess is Biden is doing nothing that the other main countries in NATO won't do. He's looking for others to share responsibility in the decision and burden.

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1468620348941811712?t=-Yn7k3r_Th4G6TuiqGHXfA&a...

"The idea that the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now"

This is answering a question no one is asking. Unilateral means we're going it alone. Well, the event of us using force would (I hope) be at Ukrainian invitation to help them defend their country, which means it would automatically not be unilateral.

"Adds that U.S. involvement in Ukraine will depend on what other NATO countries are doing."

Based on historical practice, they'll all sit around the table and wait to find out what we're doing.

My educated guess is Biden is doing nothing that the other main countries in NATO won't do. He's looking for others to share responsibility in the decision and burden.

Which is what he should do. The values that America represents will outlive America and there will always be adversaries to those ideas. It's best that we have a way to preserve continuity so we don't live in a world totally devoid of our values or where America is the sole defender of them.

The problem is this is NATO where remove the U.S. from the room and no one remaining will step up.

I don't see the European countries doing anything of material value (the threat of financial sanctions in the aftermath of Russia doing something is not an item of material value), which means if Biden is wanting to share responsibility and burden for the decision (due to he took all the flack for Afghanistan, deserved or not), NATO will do nothing of material value.

If you're Macron and you have an ultimate goal of an EU defense structure instead of a NATO one, a punt here could be enough to piss off the eastern Europeans and may help you reach that goal.

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/Eastern_Border/status/1470394424211423233?s=20

Not tied to this thread at all, but this "The Eastern Border" guy has a great Russian and Soviet history podcast. He's a Latvian and I listened to his first dozen or so episodes going through the history of the Soviet state and how much of a clusterf#ck it was.

He published a new episode on December 12th talking about the possibility of conflict between Russia and Ukraine and what certain people in Russia not reported on in Western circles are saying. He's very Baltic in his general outlook.  http://www.theeasternborder.lv/

[StateBoiler]

So the descriptions (I can find an English language source) of the Russian the ‘proposal’ is reminding me of nothing so much as Chamberlain’s proposal to the Boers or the Australian-Hungarian ultimatum. A laundry list of demands the other side can’t meet in the period, designed to be rejected right before a war starts.

If the Kremlin are "we're getting this concession or we'll take action", there's nothing NATO can do to stop them unless they're willing to deploy troops and/or material. Hard power beats soft power almost every time. We established years ago financial sanctions are limited in their effects (aren't they still under sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago?).

[StateBoiler]

This is why European states are keen to avoid sanctions on Russia...

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1472553090024984580?s=20

Why are certain states on that map just removed?

[StateBoiler]

I've read through these threads and I just can't wrap my head around what Putin's endgame is, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

China-Taiwan in comparison seems simple.  China wants to annex Taiwan, the only question is whether or not they can do it militarily and/or handle the consequences.

But what does Russia want?  The consensus (sorry Andriy) seems to be that Ukraine will get slaughtered in a war with Russia.  

-Tear off more Ukrainian territory?  Make the Sea of Azov a Russian lake?  Most people I've read seem to think that's the most likely scenario.  But paradoxically, it would just make the rest of Ukraine even more anti-Russian and pro-NATO, and make the rest of NATO far more amenable to letting them join.

-Install a pro-Russian puppet in Kiev?  I can't imagine large chunks of Ukraine, especially in the West, supporting that.

-Annex Ukraine entirely?  The same thing goes for West Ukraine times 100.  Also, this seems by far the most likely scenario to bring NATO intervention.

My reading of the situation and what I've seen kind of hinted at in the past 7 to 8 years of reporting is the Russians are fine with Ukraine as is if it was a Russia-friendly president. If the president is not Russia-friendly and pro-NATO/pro-EU, that's a security risk as the Russians see it that is not acceptable. I don't see any situation as long as it exists where the Ukrainian masses will accept a pro-Russian puppet and I don't think it's worth the heartache to the Russians to annex Ukraine in whole. If we do get military conflict, I see this going like the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, Russia will push forward, make their point, stop short of the capital, and then withdraw to the territorial gains they're happy with keeping. In Georgia that was Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Ukraine, that's probably Donetsk and Luhansk, maybe a little more...as well as Crimea which they already have. The territory in eastern Ukraine they take will be their pro-Russian buffer. Part of their end game could be international recognition of Crimea is part of Russia (meaning this is something Ukraine would have to agree to for the international community to accept) although like I've said before, they already have Crimea, so they're not giving up anything to get that result.

Crimea to me was the Russians calling Von Rompuy's bluff where Von Rompuy stated in a speech Ukraine has an EU future, and the Russians not a week later went in and took Crimea without firing a shot. Where was Von Rompuy's EU in response? Nowhere to be found. The European states militarily are quite the paper tiger. So if you threaten them with the possibility of military conflict, all signs are they are going to run away as fast as they can. It also doubles the purpose of what Putin wants to make clear about the EU and NATO to the Eastern Europeans: you get attacked by Russia, they're not going to come help you. No one ever came and helped Georgia. No one stopped the Russian annexation of Crimea. Is anyone going to help Ukraine here if guns start shooting? Biden's not sending troops there, not with this Democratic Party and after Afghanistan.

Western states want to stop any conflict from occurring, start placing soldiers and equipment in Ukraine (while still doing diplomatic negotiations). That placement of assets and troops changes the calculus of the situation immediately and increases Russian risk on doing anything. But I don't think any of the leaders have a desire to do so, and I'm very confident Putin knows that.

Have Ukrainians ever heard of the concept of "addition by subtraction"?  As much as it might hurt their pride, maybe they should consider letting TRULY-pro-Russian areas of the country go, if it lets them salvage the rest of the country and takes the boundary-dispute roadblock out of NATO membership.  But that also might cause too much economic damage to the country - I certainly plead guilty to not being terribly educated on the matter.

That's quite the precedent (consider all the other "pro-Russian areas" in the former Soviet Union) and quite Sudetanlandish.

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1472975076639268873?s=20

I saw a headline the other day that I thought was absurd. "Putin has still not made up his mind on whether to invade Ukraine". What I truly don't understand is how we can wait while Putin makes up his mind about invading Ukraine. This isn't a game of chess we are playing and lives are at stake. Not sure what is being done about this 1939 replication here but the US must take any threat of an offensive to an ally seriously. Ukraine, while not part of NATO and its solemn obligation to defend, is still worthy of support.

I'll state I agree that the West and the Western media have been way too leisurely about "all signs are Russia will have a winter-to-spring offensive".

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1474010927263629318?t=A0-BplJjmriIHCyf5CbQL...

It's Europe. What state's not a construct?

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1474060563072180228?s=20

That was stated early this week by the Biden administration. Not new information.

[StateBoiler]

I've read through these threads and I just can't wrap my head around what Putin's endgame is, so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

China-Taiwan in comparison seems simple.  China wants to annex Taiwan, the only question is whether or not they can do it militarily and/or handle the consequences.

But what does Russia want?  The consensus (sorry Andriy) seems to be that Ukraine will get slaughtered in a war with Russia.  

-Tear off more Ukrainian territory?  Make the Sea of Azov a Russian lake?  Most people I've read seem to think that's the most likely scenario.  But paradoxically, it would just make the rest of Ukraine even more anti-Russian and pro-NATO, and make the rest of NATO far more amenable to letting them join.

-Install a pro-Russian puppet in Kiev?  I can't imagine large chunks of Ukraine, especially in the West, supporting that.

-Annex Ukraine entirely?  The same thing goes for West Ukraine times 100.  Also, this seems by far the most likely scenario to bring NATO intervention.

Have Ukrainians ever heard of the concept of "addition by subtraction"?  As much as it might hurt their pride, maybe they should consider letting TRULY-pro-Russian areas of the country go, if it lets them salvage the rest of the country and takes the boundary-dispute roadblock out of NATO membership.  But that also might cause too much economic damage to the country - I certainly plead guilty to not being terribly educated on the matter.

Please don't come at me too hard, I usually read instead of posting, but I really wanted to hear the thoughts of people closer to the situation than I am.

First, you don't have to apologize for anything.

Second, there are no fully pro-Russian regions. Yes, the East and the South are Russian-speaking, but even there the vast majority of the population wants to live in Ukraine. Yes, there is much less support for NATO and the EU there, but there is no desire to be part of Russia.

Third, as StateBoiler has said, it will set a dangerous precedent everywhere and will greatly strengthen separatist movements in Europe.

Fourth, even if we assume the hypothetical surrender of the South and the East, it will be a huge damage to Ukraine's economy. The South and the East are predominantly industrial areas, of which the state budget receives a significant share. The South is also a tourist area, millions of tourists go there to swim in the sea every year, including foreigners, which also brings significant income to the budget.

Wasn't the precedent set already when western countries recognized Kosovo independence?

Which was so horrific a precedent for giving just cause to future territorial conflicts that Condoleeza Rice the day it happened claimed "this is not a precedent", which was eyerolling to the extreme.

[StateBoiler]

Once Russian oligarchs can't travel and move money about with impunity...

So are the Brits planning to nationalize the soccer teams they own? How many Russian oligarchs live in London? Throw on top of it EU and Eurozone member Cyprus has always been a Russian money backdoor and do you think the ECB are placing sanctions on Cyprus?

[StateBoiler]

The fact that Putin is ramping up a Ukraine incursion to me is a sign that he's in some serious trouble, either immediate, or in the short term domestically. There's some weakness here.

This is the argument the Obama foreign policy people and their NATO allies tried to push with Syria. Years and a couple presidents removed from then, we can safely say they were full of sh*t and Russia won that exchange through their interaction.

I've read nothing of American foreign policy people in the press saying they understand the Russians' motivations behind pushing this. If there was an internal domestic weakness for Putin in Russia, I'm sure it would be perceived by the government via our spies and signal intelligence that would then leak that info to our press who would then repeat it. I've not read any of that. All I've read is "we do not understand why Putin is doing this", which if taken at face value is a roundabout way of saying "our Moscow intelligence has nothing".

[StateBoiler]

Why would Russia attack Kiev directly? They definitely don’t have the manpower to take this large metro. If this is somehow true I suspect it is only meant to stretch Ukrainian forces thin

The idea is probably to encircle and cut off Kyiv from the rest of the country, then dictate terms.

Strikes me as a bluff. They didn't even go to Tbilisi in Georgia which is a far easier invasion than Ukraine would be. They may go to to the edges of Kiev and then start dictating terms.

[StateBoiler]

Politico's National Security Daily newsletter:

You don’t have to be a D.C. insider to realize just how worried the Biden administration is about Russia invading Ukraine again. On Tuesday, three top U.S. officials just came out and said it.

“We’re now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine,” White House press secretary JEN PSAKI said during her daily news briefing. Moscow’s recent military moves “signal to us that Russia is looking at Ukraine in an aggressive way,” LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told The Washington Post’s JONATHAN CAPEHART in an interview this morning. And chief Pentagon spokesperson JOHN KIRBY added in his own presser that there’s “no sign, no indication the Russians are willing to deescalate.”

Those comments worried a senior House Republican staffer: “We’re staring down an Afghanistan-in-Europe type of event with thousands dead, refugee floodgates opened, and U.S.-credibility gutted. It’s going to be horrible to watch," the aide texted NatSec Daily.

The openly alarmist rhetoric from the administration comes after talks between Russia, the United States and its allies last week failed to stop the momentum toward war. “We can now say that we are staying on different tracks, on totally different tracks, and this is not good, and this is disturbing," Kremlin spokesperson DMITRY PESKOV told CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA on Sunday.

It also follows intelligence released by the Biden administration Friday that a renewed incursion could start between mid-January and mid-February. We at NatSec Daily are no calendar experts, but we’re pretty confident in stating Jan. 18 falls within that timeframe.

It’s still unclear if Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN has made the decision to send his 100,000 troops stationed outside Ukraine over the border, but there are signs that he might be preparing to do that. The Kremlin has already thinned out its embassy in Ukraine, per The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal noted Friday how Russia is moving its weapons stationed in the Far East westward.

Now, Secretary of State ANTONY BLINKEN is on his way to Ukraine and Germany to once again reiterate that America’s preference is for the standoff to end diplomatically. After those visits, Blinken will meet with Russian Foreign Minister SERGEY LAVROV in Geneva. We’re hearing there’s a good chance the secretary will deliver a speech during his European trip, though details are sparse. In the meantime, the U.S. is considering sending even more weaponry to Ukraine to bolster Kyiv’s defenses.

Whether Blinken can pull off a diplomatic masterstroke or not is the big question, analysts say.
“Russia’s given every indication that there’s no plan to deescalate in any meaningful way, especially given their public statements regarding the talks last week being a failure. It seems like experts and policymakers are now preparing for a range of escalatory measures,” said RACHEL RIZZO, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Interesting to me that Blinken is going to Ukraine and Germany to say it's the U.S. preference to end this diplomatically.

[StateBoiler]

U.S. retired military generals now think tankers analysis I read says the absolute worst-case scenario is Russia stops at the Dnieper River but they doubt they go that far because they question whether Russia has the personnel to do the occupation of all that territory.

What they say is likely:

Russia owns the air and sea.

Cut off Ukraine's army, most of which are based in eastern Donbass, Russia could flank them from the north or rapidly move armed units entering the country to their west, leaving most of Ukraine's ground troops trapped

Blockade Ukraine's ports, even a Ukrainian military expert says Ukraine can do nothing in the Black Sea, this foresees:
-blockade of southeast port cities of Berdyansk and Mariupol, restricting movement of Ukraine-bound vessels in the shipping channel
-west of Crimea, blockade Odessa, Mykolaiv, and Kherso
-seizure of Snake Island (Zmiyiniy Ostriv), tiny island in the Black Sea that allows Ukraine to claim extra territorial waters helping to safeguard shipping lanes to Ukraine's Black Sea ports

-secure control of a canal going to Crimea that Ukraine shut down post-2014, allowing Russians to resolve a chronic water supply problem for Crimea
-forge a land bridge between Crimea and mainland Ukraine

-enter Russian forces through Donbass in already Russian-friendly territory, although this would be seen as largely symbolic instead of strategic

Some experts think Russia will do small enough moves that would be allowed to be palatable to enough NATO countries to fracture NATO cohesion condemning Russian maneuvers.

"The most likely military scenario in my view is going to be a series of rolling operations that they can stop at any point along the way based on how the West reacts," said Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who was commander of U.S. Army Europe from 2014 to 2017.

Seizing a smaller area or strategic location, such as Snake Island in the Black Sea, the water canal to Crimea or areas near separatist-held territory, and then pausing would lower the risk of casualties and make it "more difficult for the West to respond," said Hodges, who is now at the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Moscow could try to gamble that limited action would fracture NATO's unity, as some European governments might be reluctant to impose severe penalties in that case, Hodges said. Without a sharp response, Russia might then press ahead with more operations.

[StateBoiler]

Strikes me as a bluff. They didn't even go to Tbilisi in Georgia which is a far easier invasion than Ukraine would be. They may go to to the edges of Kiev and then start dictating terms.

Not much further: in 2008 they advanced 120km into Georgia; to reach Kyiv from the Belarusian border would be about 150 km. Not to mention the Russian army has undergone significant modernisation in the past decade plus and has far superior logistical capability now. Besides what is the bluff anyway? The Russian army hasn't announced any plans.

True on the modernization. Post-Georgia, a very capable bureaucrat was put in charge of military reform by Putin and got rid of a bunch of old do-nothing generals. I'm just looking at Ukraine from a size of territory perspective compared to Georgia. Georgia is small and narrow in comparison and has much less needs for troops in terms of number required to effectively occupy.

In any case, Russia needs the political acquiescence of Ukraine to make the results of military action stick. And for that they have to secure the capital.

Why though? Yeah, the ultimate coup d'grace is Zelenskiy is at a table and is forced to sign something, but once it's over and he's out of the room I expect diplomats and him to make the "agreements made under duress have no standing", which okay there buddy. But Ukraine never acquiesced to Russian control of Crimea and for all practical intents and purposes, it's Russian now. I don't care about de jure borders when part of the responsibility of being a sovereign state is you control and administrate all land inside your borders. If anyone wants to passionately argue that Crimea is Ukrainian, great, go visit Sevastopol and start a war to take it back.

Look at all of the post-Soviet conflicts, none of them have operated under the Westphalian sense of statehood, all of them have been about "whoever has control on the ground is the country in control, internationally recognized borders be damned". Meanwhile the West are pontificating meaninglessly on the sanctity of states like their opinion matters, be it in the post-Soviet sphere or Syria where the state has split in 4. If you want to help Ukraine keep their state sovereignty, actually commit stuff of material value to them like equipment and troops. I see the U.S. and UK have done this, although I read the UK were required to not use Dutch and German aerospace in their delivery.

It's incredibly maddening there's all this talk of "if states choose to join NATO, they can", yet in the event of an invasion of Ukraine we would be obligated to come to their aid if they were in NATO, and yet no one will commit troops to be deployed for Ukraine when such aid is voluntary. It belies that Ukraine will never be allowed in by at least some states in the NATO membership.

[StateBoiler]

Why though? Yeah, the ultimate coup d'grace is Zelenskiy is at a table and is forced to sign something, but once it's over and he's out of the room I expect diplomats and him to make the "agreements made under duress have no standing", which okay there buddy.

They'd either remove him and install another President, or make it clear that Zelensky would be removed if he goes back on agreements.

That would be a called a coup by all of Ukraine's present allies and they would say it has no standing again. I don't buy the Russians telling Zelensky "implement this agreement or we'll invade for a 3rd time 6 years from now". It'd be better to just take what you want, leave the humiliated loser president in power like happened with Saakashvili and has happened the past year with Pashinyan in Armenia: it does a better job undermining his internal authority than anything the Russians could do leaving in place a leader that lost a war.

The rest of your reply is a non sequitur to what we were discussing. I'm not talking about "Westphalian statehood" or whatever, just Russia's interests. 2014 showed that lopping off Ukranian territory piecemeal solves none of Russia's strategic issues: it merely pushed the greater part of Ukraine into seeking NATO membership and into developing drones and ballistic missiles targeted at the heart of Russia. The only way Russia can solve that militarily is by coercing a change of the political situation in Kyiv. And that requires decapitation.

It absolutely resolved an existential problem for the Russian Navy and the army somewhat of potentially losing their Sevastopol base that allowed them to project in the Black Sea and thererfore the Mediterranean and therefore partially in the Atlantic. If they lost Sevastopol in 2014, Russian intervention in Syria a year later that kept Assad in power and killed the West's goals in Syria probably never happens. The brilliance to me is they did it and took over Crimea without firing a shot. And the Ukrainians, Americans, and Europeans just stood by and watched like a bunch of castrated eunuchs.