"But it is already obvious that the constitution will be changed, the regions in the east will receive the right to self-government. Russia will insist on observing the rights of the Russian-speaking population. The simplest and most understandable way is to introduce gubernatorial elections in all "Russian" regions from Odessa to Kharkov. This alone will make the return of the Nazis to power a problem. An interesting leak from internal NATO documents indicates that Russia will create a demilitarized zone along its border so that there are no military formations within a distance of 150 kilometers."------ How is it obvious ? Marat should stick to REPORTING from the front and leave prediction of the future alone.
There can be no talk of negotiations until the US side finals speaks to the Russians. All the usual talk among themselves before speaking to the Russian leadership is meaningless. So until that time the Russian military should continue improving there position.
The decision on how to conduct the end game obviously belongs to Russia, not Ukraine or its US/NATO masters. On the West's side, Russia's war losses and sanctions are their leverage. Are those enough to change Russia's negotiating position from, say, maximalist to something else? As we don't know with certainty how much Russia is suffering under the war and sanctions, we don't know how much leverage the West has.
It's my belief that Mr. Putin wrote off the ~$300 billion of Russian state funds stolen by the West as a cost of the war, that the funds were never coming back. This was the best way to think of it from a business perspective. Nevertheless it's a lot of money and it's power to induce a shift in Russia cannot be discounted.
From the Russian side, they have their oft-stated demands: no NATO for Ukraine, demilitarization, etc. Rationally, there are many details to those demands, which will make negotiations complex. Importantly, Russia has refused to consider a cease-fire until a full peace agreement is arranged. This means that Russia can continue to take the ground that Ukraine is currently losing even while negotiations are ongoing. This of course is the correct tactical negotiating position to take.
It's my view that Russia is managing its war machine and overall economy successfully, despite a shaky start and the punishing sanctions. This means that a maximalist negotiating position is feasible. However I don't believe Russia will present it as such. That would be bad optics, geopolitically. Instead, if Russia wishes, it can haggle over the peace terms for a long time while its army keeps advancing. It would do this until it reaches the minimum conditions it will settle for, whatever those might be. On the West's side, they would probably ask that Russia slow down its military during negotiations: no big offensives.
No one outside the Kremlin's innermost circle knows Russia's minimum acceptable result for the war. No one outside the Kremlin's innermost circle knows how much the war and sanctions are hurting Russia. With those two critical factors hidden to us, predicting the outcome of negotiations is difficult. However, if Russia's losses from the war and sanctions aren't existential, then this is one possible direction things could go:
1. There will be negotiations but the war will continue at the same time.
2. Russia will initially slow roll its military operations as a gesture of good faith to the negotiations.
3. Achieving Russia's minimum stated terms will require a de facto capitulation by Ukraine.
4. The difficulty of getting Ukraine's capitulation will be the cover for Russia's continued advance.
5. Russia continues to take territory until it reaches its minimum acceptable results, or Ukraine capitulates.
It's the terms of AMERICA's surrender which should be under discussion here and not just its proxy-toys, playthings, like NATO/EU/Ukraine.
Time to stick the boot in, go for the jugular, you lily-livered ass-wipes.
Let's not pussy out now Putin! Not until the USSA sees sections of itself fall into the Atlantic & Pacific Oceans can we ever see true lasting peace.
A decade or two of sanctions on the Western Cabalists should be enforced, Banks crippled, corporations like Blackrock charged reparations to rebuild everything they've helped destroy.
All CIA/NSA/STARLINK/State Department HEADS handed over to Special Tribunals in the Donbass.
Scores of thousands have been lost and if you Russian saps didn't possess those pesky hypersonic missiles and the scum of creation USA did, you'd be GONE.
This war will only end when Ukrainians capitulate, i.e. unconditionally surrender to the Russian Federation. They (The Ukrainians) had been given not one (Minsk1), not two (Minsk2) but three (Istanbul) chances to save themselves. By the time Russia had to sacrifice so many brave Russian souls defending motherland from the existential threat from the West there is no turning back. Strategically, there is absolutely no leverage important enough from the West to be put on the negotiation table for any claim whatsoever. A clean cut, maximalist victory is and must be the only viable endgame. Or, to put simply the victory won on the ground paid by Russian blood is non-negotiable!
A complete capitulation is a difficult thing to achieve. Moreover, capitulation doesn't guarantee the best long-term outcome for either side. Leaving the enemy with something they can hold on to, but that can't come back to weaken you in future, might be preferable in some cases. For example, the US allowed Japan to keep its emperor following its agreement to end WWII.
Choosing to continue until Ukraine's complete capitulation would have a lot of emotional satisfaction for Russia. But against that Russia has to consider future losses and whatever it can get back in sanctions relief from the West by not being maximalist. It will be very interesting to watch how this unfolds from here.
Capitulation means unconditional surrender to your opponent. In the case of Ukraine means de-Nazification, de-militarization and perpetual neutrality (No NATO or EU) guaranteed by the Russian Federation only. These are the political targets declared from the very beginning of the SMO and remained unchanged up today. Since the Ukrainians did turn down every single diplomatic effort to resolve things peacefully, they will be obliged to accept the Russian will by force. Additionally, since precious Russian blood has been shed during the SMO, they will have to accept everything that has been lost on the ground. Russia does not need millions of Ukrainians with deeply rooted hatred against anything Russian on her balance. What Russia is determined is the recovery of the historically and demographically Russian lands, not only the already annexed oblasts but Odessa, Nikolayev and even Kharkiv. The remaining landlocked, de-militarized and de-Nazified Ukraine could continue to exist as a Russian vassal state as it happened with Japan and the USA after WW2.
Marat's logic is compelling. The Russians and Americans are now maneuvering for inevitable peace negotiations. The Ukraine project is coming to an end and a new Yalta to reorganize the world and remove the security threats to Russia is imminent. Seems Marat is also saying that while Russia will not be able to achieve a total reclamation of of all historical Russian lands in Ukraine, they will however inflict a strategic defeat on the Americans and NATO by stopping and pushing back their 30 year project to surround and threaten Russia militarily. Of course the maximalists on blogs and podcasts, who do not have any skin in the game, will denounce any military compromise as a betrayal. Some things never change.
"But it is already obvious that the constitution will be changed, the regions in the east will receive the right to self-government. Russia will insist on observing the rights of the Russian-speaking population. The simplest and most understandable way is to introduce gubernatorial elections in all "Russian" regions from Odessa to Kharkov. This alone will make the return of the Nazis to power a problem. An interesting leak from internal NATO documents indicates that Russia will create a demilitarized zone along its border so that there are no military formations within a distance of 150 kilometers."------ How is it obvious ? Marat should stick to REPORTING from the front and leave prediction of the future alone.
There can be no talk of negotiations until the US side finals speaks to the Russians. All the usual talk among themselves before speaking to the Russian leadership is meaningless. So until that time the Russian military should continue improving there position.
Pokrovsk is about to enjoy a siege.
It won't last too long.
The decision on how to conduct the end game obviously belongs to Russia, not Ukraine or its US/NATO masters. On the West's side, Russia's war losses and sanctions are their leverage. Are those enough to change Russia's negotiating position from, say, maximalist to something else? As we don't know with certainty how much Russia is suffering under the war and sanctions, we don't know how much leverage the West has.
It's my belief that Mr. Putin wrote off the ~$300 billion of Russian state funds stolen by the West as a cost of the war, that the funds were never coming back. This was the best way to think of it from a business perspective. Nevertheless it's a lot of money and it's power to induce a shift in Russia cannot be discounted.
From the Russian side, they have their oft-stated demands: no NATO for Ukraine, demilitarization, etc. Rationally, there are many details to those demands, which will make negotiations complex. Importantly, Russia has refused to consider a cease-fire until a full peace agreement is arranged. This means that Russia can continue to take the ground that Ukraine is currently losing even while negotiations are ongoing. This of course is the correct tactical negotiating position to take.
It's my view that Russia is managing its war machine and overall economy successfully, despite a shaky start and the punishing sanctions. This means that a maximalist negotiating position is feasible. However I don't believe Russia will present it as such. That would be bad optics, geopolitically. Instead, if Russia wishes, it can haggle over the peace terms for a long time while its army keeps advancing. It would do this until it reaches the minimum conditions it will settle for, whatever those might be. On the West's side, they would probably ask that Russia slow down its military during negotiations: no big offensives.
No one outside the Kremlin's innermost circle knows Russia's minimum acceptable result for the war. No one outside the Kremlin's innermost circle knows how much the war and sanctions are hurting Russia. With those two critical factors hidden to us, predicting the outcome of negotiations is difficult. However, if Russia's losses from the war and sanctions aren't existential, then this is one possible direction things could go:
1. There will be negotiations but the war will continue at the same time.
2. Russia will initially slow roll its military operations as a gesture of good faith to the negotiations.
3. Achieving Russia's minimum stated terms will require a de facto capitulation by Ukraine.
4. The difficulty of getting Ukraine's capitulation will be the cover for Russia's continued advance.
5. Russia continues to take territory until it reaches its minimum acceptable results, or Ukraine capitulates.
Marat, the current American proposal is to stop the shooting FIRST, and THEN, by the end of the year, to hold the elections in Ukraine. That tells me that the American side is still trying to maneuver for a better negotiating angle rather than accepting Russian position; am I wrong here? https://www.reuters.com/world/us-wants-ukraine-hold-elections-following-ceasefire-says-trump-envoy-2025-02-01/
It's the terms of AMERICA's surrender which should be under discussion here and not just its proxy-toys, playthings, like NATO/EU/Ukraine.
Time to stick the boot in, go for the jugular, you lily-livered ass-wipes.
Let's not pussy out now Putin! Not until the USSA sees sections of itself fall into the Atlantic & Pacific Oceans can we ever see true lasting peace.
A decade or two of sanctions on the Western Cabalists should be enforced, Banks crippled, corporations like Blackrock charged reparations to rebuild everything they've helped destroy.
All CIA/NSA/STARLINK/State Department HEADS handed over to Special Tribunals in the Donbass.
Scores of thousands have been lost and if you Russian saps didn't possess those pesky hypersonic missiles and the scum of creation USA did, you'd be GONE.
This war will only end when Ukrainians capitulate, i.e. unconditionally surrender to the Russian Federation. They (The Ukrainians) had been given not one (Minsk1), not two (Minsk2) but three (Istanbul) chances to save themselves. By the time Russia had to sacrifice so many brave Russian souls defending motherland from the existential threat from the West there is no turning back. Strategically, there is absolutely no leverage important enough from the West to be put on the negotiation table for any claim whatsoever. A clean cut, maximalist victory is and must be the only viable endgame. Or, to put simply the victory won on the ground paid by Russian blood is non-negotiable!
A complete capitulation is a difficult thing to achieve. Moreover, capitulation doesn't guarantee the best long-term outcome for either side. Leaving the enemy with something they can hold on to, but that can't come back to weaken you in future, might be preferable in some cases. For example, the US allowed Japan to keep its emperor following its agreement to end WWII.
Choosing to continue until Ukraine's complete capitulation would have a lot of emotional satisfaction for Russia. But against that Russia has to consider future losses and whatever it can get back in sanctions relief from the West by not being maximalist. It will be very interesting to watch how this unfolds from here.
Capitulation means unconditional surrender to your opponent. In the case of Ukraine means de-Nazification, de-militarization and perpetual neutrality (No NATO or EU) guaranteed by the Russian Federation only. These are the political targets declared from the very beginning of the SMO and remained unchanged up today. Since the Ukrainians did turn down every single diplomatic effort to resolve things peacefully, they will be obliged to accept the Russian will by force. Additionally, since precious Russian blood has been shed during the SMO, they will have to accept everything that has been lost on the ground. Russia does not need millions of Ukrainians with deeply rooted hatred against anything Russian on her balance. What Russia is determined is the recovery of the historically and demographically Russian lands, not only the already annexed oblasts but Odessa, Nikolayev and even Kharkiv. The remaining landlocked, de-militarized and de-Nazified Ukraine could continue to exist as a Russian vassal state as it happened with Japan and the USA after WW2.
This is completely new information for me and, I guess, for many people. Thank you.
Marat's logic is compelling. The Russians and Americans are now maneuvering for inevitable peace negotiations. The Ukraine project is coming to an end and a new Yalta to reorganize the world and remove the security threats to Russia is imminent. Seems Marat is also saying that while Russia will not be able to achieve a total reclamation of of all historical Russian lands in Ukraine, they will however inflict a strategic defeat on the Americans and NATO by stopping and pushing back their 30 year project to surround and threaten Russia militarily. Of course the maximalists on blogs and podcasts, who do not have any skin in the game, will denounce any military compromise as a betrayal. Some things never change.
There will be no peace on the planet until the Fatmericans abandon their Wolfowitz doctrine and economic warfare.