__  __      _        _____ _ _ _
|  \/  | ___| |_ __ _|  ___(_) | |_ ___ _ __
| |\/| |/ _ \ __/ _` | |_  | | | __/ _ \ '__|
| |  | |  __/ || (_| |  _| | | | ||  __/ |
|_|  |_|\___|\__\__,_|_|   |_|_|\__\___|_|
community weblog

A momentum shift that changes everything

Ukraine Is Not Losing. Russia Is Not Winning. [Anne Applebaum | The Atlantic | Archive]
Since 2022, many public arguments about the war, even in Europe and the U.S., have adopted the narrative put out by Russian propaganda, tacitly assuming that Ukraine, outmanned and outgunned, would eventually lose. Helping Ukraine was a way to stave off disaster, nothing more. When the Trump administration stopped sending military and financial aid to Kyiv in 2025, some in Washington expected (and maybe wanted) the end to come quickly. ... Suddenly, many people have understood that the Russian narrative is wrong: The Ukrainians are not losing. The Russians are not winning, and more important, they don't know how to win. Ukrainians and outside analysts have described this dynamic in three main theaters of the war.
----- Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 6, 2026 [Institute for the Study of War]
[Topline:] Different sources continue to conclude that the Russian military's performance is declining, despite utilizing differing mapping methodologies to visualize the battlefield situation.
----- Putin's options after the war has stalled [Anders Puck Nielsen | YouTube]
Putin's four options and how to evaluate them 2:37 Accept defeat 5:53 Freeze the conflict 8:48 Mass mobilization 10:56 Escalate against NATO

posted by mazola on Jun 07, 2026 at 8:51 AM

---------------------------

Applebaum is one of those Frummy types.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 11:48 AM

---------------------------

what does that sentence even mean?
posted by hototogisu at 12:41 PM

---------------------------

If a Ukrainian drone appears in Putin's vicinity, and takes him out, would those remaining in the Kremlin launch a nuclear strike on Kyiv?

I just wonder how long Zelenskyy's going to keep pussy-footing around. Is this war, or what is it?

(Not answering your question, hototogisu)
posted by Rash at 12:45 PM

---------------------------

what does that sentence even mean?

I presume that she's an anti-Trump conservative who writes for the Atlantic, like David Frum. And that therefore if you're on the left you might find that she has other opinions you don't agree with as much as you might her opinions on Trump, Russia, and Ukraine.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 12:49 PM

---------------------------

Anne Applebaum was one of the neocons who lied America into the Iraq War, and who still to this day will lie directly to your face and tell you that the war was a good idea, actually, and not a strategic and moral disaster. She's deeply incompetent and untruthful. Her opinion on foreign affairs is worth somewhat less than that of the "I like turtles" kid.
posted by Balna Watya at 12:50 PM

---------------------------

The gift link supplied by mazola only shows me the first page of the Atlantic article; the real stuff is available here.
posted by Rash at 12:52 PM

---------------------------

That wasn't so hard, was it.
posted by hototogisu at 12:54 PM

---------------------------

I've had any number of disagreements (to put it mildly) with things Applebaum has said, particularly as it relates to Gaza, but if she's making the case here that 1. Russia is failing to win its war on Ukraine and doesn't appear to have a sense of how to change that, 2. Ukraine isn't "losing" the war in any strategic sense, and 3. Western media has long had a bad habit of exaggerating Russian successes and Ukrainian failures, then sure, she's on the money here.

Pretty much since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, there has been a strong narrative, one that dominates among certain political quarters and to various extents has been mainstreamed, that the war in Ukraine is just a matter of when, not if, Ukraine loses. There's also been a tendency especially since 2023 to highlight when Russia appears to be retaking the initiative, or when Ukraine appears to be faltering, but not when the obverse happens. Like, in late 2023, the headlines were rife with (largely accurate) claims that Ukraine's counteroffensive had stalled, failed to turn the tide; many held the counteroffensive's failure up as emblematic of the inevitability of Russian victory, a takeaway as disastrously, catastrophically misguided as coming away from the 2024 US elections thinking "clearly the Democrats need to tack more to the center-right to win!" When Russia's own offensive the following year ran out of steam having largely failed to achieve its own objectives, there was nowhere near that same level of attention, nowhere near the same number of people pointing to it as evidence that Russia was done for.

Russia's casualty rate remains astonishingly high, and has only gotten worse in recent months, but there is credible evidence from multiple sources to suggest that in the last few weeks Russia has lost ground in Ukraine. Obviously Russia is fine with a casualty rate most actual first-rate military powers would find unacceptable-- especially since a disproportionate number of the casualties are not Russians but ethnic minorities in Russia, communities who have been decimated by the war and whose plight has gone almost completely unnoticed-- but it certainly doesn't suggest 1. that Ukraine is just buying time before its inevitable defeat or 2. that Russia has a clear strategic pathway to a victory.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that people consuming news about the war, or commentating on it, or debating it, rarely have a shared definition of what "victory" actually looks like for either Ukraine or Russia. At some point, many western commentators decided (none too few in bad faith I think) that a Ukrainian victory had to mean the complete military defeat of Russia, or even the collapse of the Russian regime, and that was obviously not going to happen. At around the same point, many of those same commentators decided Russian victory was just... not suffering a complete military defeat or a collapse of the regime, or at most being able to hold onto limited territorial gains in Crimea and Luhansk and Donetsk, and that's also obviously not true. Russia didn't invade Ukraine with the goal of just conquering the Donbas and calling it a day. Russia very clearly wanted to at bare minimum depose the Ukrainian government and (re)impose a suzerain-vassal relationship on Ukraine (and at most to annex the entire country) and not only did that not happen, it's not going to happen at this point. By that measure, Russia has already lost the war-- at least based on the goals it sought to achieve at the outset.
posted by Method Man at 12:54 PM

---------------------------

anne appelbaum explicitly advocated the killing of journalists in a 2002 article in slate which she has not walked back or disavowed. she's an avatar of establishment hypocrisy; she's the answer to the question of who manufactures consent for the imperialist violence programme. presumably the point of TFA could have been conveyed much more effectively using some other article by some actually trustworthy person?
posted by nobody_truncates at 1:15 PM

---------------------------

Russia, when it advances, is moving at a literal snails pace. They are measuring gains in inches achieved, while sacrificing horrendous numbers of human lives and resources. Ukraine has not repulsed much of the invasion recently. True. But they aren't wavering, they aren't breaking and they sure are not losing.


Ukraine is actually pioneers in drone warfare, launching strikes that change warfare as much as aviation and aircraft carriers did. Russia is taking hamlets and calling it huge success while the fortress cities of Ukraine are holding strong.


I don't think it's absolutely impossible Russia has some sort of major political crisis, upheaval. The financial and humanitarian burdens are mounting. A draft is going to be massively unpopular. Ukraine drones strike the heartland. What happens when Putin finally runs out of troops, or dies? What happens when Ukraine sets all the refineries on fire? What happens if the USA gets balls and gives lots of weapons to Ukraine? (Ukraine will take back significant territory like they always do.)


Russia is just much, much more threadbare and tattered than Ukraine. I was deeply worried about Trump being an idiot, but Ukraine has held on. Russia has a lot of manpower, but lacks training and the ability to do much more than crawl forward. Yes. They are learning and adjusting, but have shown no abilities to drastically change the war in their favor. If I were Zelenskyy, I'd be seriously considering what it would take to drive all Russia out of occupied Ukraine territory
posted by Previous username Jacen at 1:20 PM

---------------------------

...and retake Crimea.
posted by Rash at 1:42 PM

---------------------------

20 divsions should be enough to push russia out.
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 PM

---------------------------

Thanks for making a new Ukraine post, we needed that.

My internet is not my friend these days (which is a huge problem at work), so I haven't been able to read the top article. I do sometimes look at what Anne Applebaum is doing, exactly because she is a right-wing ideologue -- she has a huge network both in Washington and in Eastern Europe. I want to know what these guys are thinking and doing.

I have a sense that we are getting very different news and commentaries in different countries. In Denmark, and in all of Scandinavia and the Baltics, the basic understanding is that Russia can not, and can not be allowed to win in Ukraine. So that runs through all the news and debate (Anders Puck Nielsen is Danish). I agree. It's not an option, the only discussion is about how to get to some form of ceasefire and optimally to peace. And where to draw the borders. It seems that some other countries (not only USA) are much more impressed by Russian propaganda?

I've never thought Russia could win in Ukraine. Russian military force is a weird thing, because it is absolutely terrifying, they have never left the Middle Ages in terms of tactics: its rape and pillage all the way. But they have also never left the Middle Ages in terms of strategy, there is no plan if rape and pillage (and fear thereof) doesn't get them where they want to go. They are also completely corrupt and disorganized.
I think maybe what is going on in Ukraine will inspire a lot of the other countries around Russia and many of the smaller states within Russia to think differently about the Russian empire.
posted by mumimor at 2:02 PM

---------------------------

I laid out a lot of my thinking on the war in Ukraine in this post and I largely stand by it (and it echoes some of what mumimor said above). I don't know what internal cracks may exist in terms of the Kremlin's appetite for continuing to dig the hole they've been digging with the war. I do kind of think that until Putin's out of power it's unlikely that a cessation of hostilities will happen, because he's basically shown himself to be perfectly happy to feed his countrymen into the war machine ad infinitum.

It's as if nobody in Russian leadership (such as it is) have learned anything from events past Operation Barbarossa, in which arguably the strategy of "just throw men and tanks (and money) at the problem" was really saved by a strategy known as "it's winter in Russia and the other guys don't have coats or logistics."

The really unpredictable thing is: What happens if the ability to continue with the current strategy is threatened by an exhaustion of resources on the Russian side? If they can't continue to sling troops at the problem do they escalate to something even more reckless (i.e., worst case, nuclear weapons) or do they de-escalate and agree to a cease fire? This is the 64,000 Euro question.
posted by axiom at 2:23 PM

---------------------------

Putin is a craftier, more intelligent sociopath than Trump and has no problem continuing the war until a compelling reason to end it appears. That reason would be an easier, larger power grab than trying to take the Ukraine. I'm pretty sure reducing both the Ukraine & Russia to gravel is acceptable. I'm at a loss as to what would be easier than continuing as he is.
posted by evilDoug at 3:20 PM

---------------------------

do they escalate to something even more reckless

Putin may be waiting for his social media troll farm both-sides pincer attacks to turn the UK, France and Germany over to anti-NATO stalinists or anti-NATO fascists - they're both in his pocket. That will virtually destroy NATO and pretty much neuter any forceful response to his use of a nuke or two.

Maybe Xi, Trump and Netanyahu will synchronize their own use of the same against their own annexation targets in a bid to shake the whole world at once.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:57 PM

---------------------------

I feel like I have to push back a tiny bit on the idea that Russia has never had a good idea in warfare. Soviet thinkers prior to WWII had actually had a LOT of thoughts about war that turned out to be surprisingly trenchant once Stalin finally gave in and let his generals do their jobs. Many of these ideas ended up being incorporated into the thinking of America and other western powers post-war.

The current moment in Russia is the result of decades at this point of allowing the intelligence apparatus to run the country, an apparatus that knows only how to undermine and deconstruct. Plus the usual oligarchic looting.

In any event, Perun's recent video about the state of war is I think fairly measured.
posted by selfnoise at 4:29 PM

---------------------------

Ukraine is actually pioneers in drone warfare, launching strikes that change warfare as much as aviation and aircraft carriers did.

I see your comparison dynamically in distance extention of air power on mobile platforms. Revolutionary in how Japan then the US used them, pioneering. But drones were striking both allied and axis shipping and land targets during the second world war though its pioneering rudimentary stage. The adaptability and use of newer technologies in drones in Ukraine is important because of being battle tested, strategic and tactical military targets hit with reliability, industrial capacity and skill sets and tactics so well honed as to teach them. Quite simply, Ukraine solder is arguably the most battle tested solder in the field today.
posted by clavdivs at 4:55 PM

---------------------------

The war seems to have entered an absurd attritional phase. It seems absurd because of the self-imposed limits. NATO countries deliberately underfunding and undersupplying Ukraine even though it is in the democracies' self-interest to send Russia back to its internationally recognized borders. Russia ought to overwhelm Ukraine by mobilizing its population and sweeping out of Beloruss into Ukraine's flank and rear. Instead, the war pits two sides on a strictly defined battlefield. We have to wait for the result of this limited attrition because no side is capable of significant maneuver. What a waste. As Putin apparently very well knows, the cheapest and quickest way to end this war is to drone the president of Russia.
posted by SnowRottie at 5:12 PM

---------------------------

It's worth sharing a link directly to Zelensky's letter to Putin. It's brief enough to read in it's entirety rather than relying on quotes in news articles.
posted by Kabanos at 5:44 PM

---------------------------

Kyiv Independent: Why Zelensky's letter wasn't about Putin as Kremlin rejects meeting
Many Ukrainian lawmakers and analysts view the letter less as a direct appeal to Putin and more as a strategic message aimed at audiences beyond the Kremlin. Political analyst Ihor Reiterovych argued that the document speaks simultaneously to Western capitals and Russian elites.

Analysis from Mick Ryan: The Writing is on the (Kremlin) Wall for Putin and Choking the Crimea Land Bridge.
Zelenskyy's letter was published as an instrument of strategy rather than a genuine expectation of talks. By documenting Russia's dependence on Pyongyang and Beijing, its mounting losses and its domestic fatigue, and by offering a concrete and reasonable path to a ceasefire, Kyiv is building the diplomatic record it will need when negotiations eventually recommence, while shifting the burden of refusal onto Putin. The Kremlin's dismissive reply, demanding capitulation dressed as an invitation to Moscow, confirms that no settlement is near. Putin still believes strategic patience favours him.


Maria Popova in Policy Magazine: Putin's Delusion and the Myth of a Negotiated Peace
The uncomfortable truth is that this war is unlikely to end at a negotiating table in Geneva or Istanbul. It will end when the cost of imperial ambition becomes unbearable for the Russian elite and the broader society. Since no Western army, nor even the Ukrainian one, will march on Moscow to enforce Putin's surrender, the defeat must be internal. It must be driven by a collapse of the regime's capacity to function.

We are not there yet.
posted by Kabanos at 6:55 PM

---------------------------

drone the president

"Images by Tyrone Greene ...
Dark and lonely on the summer night.
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
Watchdog barking – Do he bite?
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
Slip in his window,
Break his neck!
Then his house
I start to wreck!
Got no reason —
What the heck!
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
C-I-L-L ...
My land – lord ...
Def!"
posted by CynicalKnight at 6:55 PM

---------------------------

Interesting to me that both Putin and Trump have embroiled themselves in wars of choice with little clear gain should they win and huge downside for continuing the conflict, and that neither of them can withdraw for the cost to their ego and reputation with their respective faithful.

It seems likely that neither conflict will end until these authoritarian strongmen have died or are overthrown. May it come soon in both cases.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 7:02 PM

---------------------------

How corruption rules the Russian front line in Ukraine

There is a "system of extortion and punishment" in the Russian ranks, where infantry soldiers must "buy their own" military gear. Other collections begin "under the pretext of raising money for drones, equipment or food", but payments are expected to continue. "Soldiers who refuse to pay may be thrown into dug-out pits for torture."

In extreme cases, sources have reported that commanders "requisition troops' bank cards and PIN codes" before sending them into battle. "The dead are declared missing, and commanders withdraw the money they earned from their bank accounts". As one soldier was told by a new commanding officer, survival is "not a matter of luck, but of ability to pay".

In the Russian military, "men learn quickly to fear their commanders more than their foe", said PBS. Videos appear on social media depicting the "horrific punishments" faced by soldiers if they fail to pay up, with reports of some "being locked in cages, electrocuted and sexually assaulted". According to the independent Russian station Radio Echo, nearly 12,000 complaints were filed over six months last year, accusing commanders of "corruption and violence towards their own men".
posted by Brian B. at 7:48 PM

---------------------------

You'd think alot more hand grenade pins would just fall out and wind up in commanders bunker.

That's the amercan way about pay.
posted by clavdivs at 12:51 AM

---------------------------

After that, it could become a border—a temporary border, one that will not be recognized by either side—but a border nevertheless: no different from a river or mountain range, impossible to move, difficult to cross. This would not be a clear victory for Ukraine, but it would be a major defeat for Putin, whose central goal—the destruction of all of Ukraine, the removal of Ukraine from the map—would never be realized.


Russia's central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and therefore NATO missiles out of Ukraine. This goal has been achieved. I don't know where the final lines will be drawn, but it will happen when Ukraine accepts they won't be joining NATO and negotiates a realistic peace deal.

> in late 2023, the headlines were rife with (largely accurate) claims that Ukraine's counteroffensive had stalled, failed to turn the tide; many held the counteroffensive's failure up as emblematic of the inevitability of Russian victory [...] When Russia's own offensive the following year ran out of steam having largely failed to achieve its own objectives, there was nowhere near that same level of attention, nowhere near the same number of people pointing to it as evidence that Russia was done for.

You have to look at the context. Ukrainian officials have acknowledged (and Western media has reported) for years that there will be no significant reclamation of Russian-occupied territory. The advent of large-scale drone operations has made it a war of attrition. A Ukrainian offensive failing means lives and equipment expended pointlessly. You can read interviews of soldiers that participated in the 2023 counteroffensive or the Kursk incursion and they mostly say those resources would have been better spent digging better defensive lines, they were never going to hold any territory. A Russian failure just means a slower advance, because a war of attrition favors the bigger country.

> It's as if nobody in Russian leadership (such as it is) have learned anything from events past Operation Barbarossa, in which arguably the strategy of "just throw men and tanks (and money) at the problem" was really saved by a strategy known as "it's winter in Russia and the other guys don't have coats or logistics."

This is ahistorical. It's based on all the Nazi accounts of the Eastern Front, whose writers weren't about to admit they were out-strategized and out-fought by the Judeo-Bolshevik Slavic untermenschen. David Glantz has done good work dispelling these myths.
posted by Henry Fool at 2:13 AM

---------------------------

...and retake Crimea.
I suspect Ukraine realise that directly re-taking Crimea ,any time soon, is something they lack to resources to do. What they have managed to achieve since 2022, is to damage and destroy enough military assets and infrastructure to make the region increasingly unattractive for Russian settlers. The Russians, nevertheless, must spend considerable resources defending it. In that respect, a long term retake of Crimea is a waiting game: wait for Russians to drain out; wait for the occupation costs to drain Russian budgets.

In this respect, as with other aspects of the war at present, I'm reminded of playing Risk - in each successive shake of the die, the defender will win any draw; they have an advantage in an attritional conflict. Attackers often under-estimate the level of superiority they will need to conquer a resilient country whilst also maintaining a sufficient level of occupation over the rest of their empire. Interestingly, the 40th anniversary edition of Risk lists "Ukraine" as an area representing Eastern Europe including European Russia; Russia does not exist. Maybe the makers are making some bets.
posted by rongorongo at 3:50 AM

---------------------------

Russia's central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and therefore NATO missiles out of Ukraine. This goal has been achieved. I don't know where the final lines will be drawn, but it will happen when Ukraine accepts they won't be joining NATO and negotiates a realistic peace deal.

Russian talking points.

The peace deal Russian asset Steve Witkoff presented that was dictated by Russia wasn't realistic, because it asked Ukraine to give up territory behind their fortified position that they hadn't yet lost in the war.
posted by subdee at 7:42 AM

---------------------------

Russia's goal has always been taking Ukraine entirely and colonising it, with native population expelled, eradicated or indoctrinated. They've done it twice before. Except this time the West isn't playing ball. And drones really have changed the balance of power.

Zelenskyy is a master of PR, and Polish newspapers really picked up how he "allowed" the victory parade (without a single tank, natch) but orchestated a proper skies-of-Mordor backdrop for the St Petersburg economic forum. Russia may keep bombarding Ukrainian cities, but they've been doing that for four years already, while Ukrainian drones are doing more and more very strategic damage to key Russian assets in the last few months. They've managed to make it hurt for big city Russians. Putin's palaces are now surrounded by air defence facilities. This is a material change in the last six months or so: the war is not only in Ukraine.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 7:59 AM

---------------------------

In this respect, as with other aspects of the war at present, I'm reminded of playing Risk - in each successive shake of the die, the defender will win any draw; they have an advantage in an attritional conflict.

If you calculate it out, the attacker has the attritional advantage due to the extra die. But since Risk is almost never played 1v1, attacking 1 player will mean you become weaker comparative to other players, so attacking is still a bad idea.
posted by Barry Boterman at 8:01 AM

---------------------------

The shutdown of Telegram access in Russia is the beginning of the end for Putin's war. The idea was to stop bad news from spreading, but what happens is the opposite. People suspect and believe the worst. Morale and army recruitment plunges. Perhaps (knock on wood), we are only a few months away from a collapse of the Russian front.
posted by storybored at 9:06 AM

---------------------------

Interesting summary of some recent rumours of the British SAS involvement in Ukraine both prior to and after the Russian invasion. - since 2014 rather than since 2022. The truth regarding outside assistance from sources like this, is masked by a wall of "plausible deniability" - and these allegations have been echoed by Russian media - doubtless in an attempt to imply that Uranian forces could not possibly be good enough to succeed against mighty Russia on their own. However, many of the tactics Ukraine has deployed, do seem to show the hallmark of an "SAS-like" approach: for example audacious operations carried out deep behind enemy lines and conducted so that no Russian military base can feel safe. Equally the degree to which Ukraine was prepared to fight an asymmetric battle against the attack on Kiev in 2022.
posted by rongorongo at 11:54 AM

---------------------------

Russia may keep bombarding Ukrainian cities, but they've been doing that for four years already, while Ukrainian drones are doing more and more very strategic damage to key Russian assets in the last few months.

It's weird to me that there isn't more commentary and analysis of the Ukrainian air war's efforts to avoid causing civilian casualties. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any other conflict of this scale where a nation hasn't either resorted to outright terror bombing or else dropped and/or launched so much ordinance that unacceptable numbers of civilian casualties were inevitable. I think it's one of the most remarkable aspects of this war and another reason I'm comfortable saying Slava Ukraini!
posted by house-goblin at 1:47 PM

---------------------------

Re.: SAS involvement: I'm heading for bed, so I won't see the linked video before after work tomorrow, but this is just a quick reminder that a lot of patriotic Ukrainians including Zelensky are Russian speakers and have a deep knowledge of Russian society, including geography and economy. I'm not saying SAS is not involved at all, but I am saying that SAS works best when it builds on local ressources. And I think Ukraine is a very fertile ground.
posted by mumimor at 1:52 PM

---------------------------

Russia's central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and therefore NATO missiles out of Ukraine. This goal has been achieved.

Thanks for parroting the Russian line, but have you forgotten that Russia's actions brought Sweden and Finland into NATO?

Russia's border with NATO has greatly increased, so if you believe their propaganda that this was all about proximity to NATO, that's not exactly a win.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 5:45 PM

---------------------------

Henry Fool: "Russia's central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and therefore NATO missiles out of Ukraine. This goal has been achieved. I don't know where the final lines will be drawn, but it will happen when Ukraine accepts they won't be joining NATO and negotiates a realistic peace deal."

So, this is an interesting analysis. Given your posting history I doubt you're "parroting Russian talking points". At least I'd be very surprised to see a Congressional staffer do so unwittingly. I'd be curious to know a little more about what you mean when you say Russia's "central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO", and that "this goal has been achieved".

While it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will join NATO before the end of active conflict or in the immediate aftermath, in the longer term I don't see that as a sure bet. When the "final lines have been drawn" Ukraine will be much more closely linked to Europe, militarily, economically, and politically. Even if the US remains disengaged from Ukraine due to the MAGA faction in US politics, it isn't hard to envision a post-conflict NATO-lite arrangement with Ukraine and the Europeans, including having various European forces stationed in Ukraine post-conflict and trip-wire forces near the "final lines".

If something like this were to come to pass then I think it would the major defeat of Putin that the part of the article that you quoted represents.
posted by Reverend John at 7:00 PM

---------------------------

So, I just realized that I misread your comment that I had mistakenly based the belief that you are a Congressional staffer, and that you were just quoting someone else's blog post in that comment (which you cited and were in no way deceptive about, it was 100% my goof). I regret the error.
posted by Reverend John at 7:15 PM

---------------------------

> The peace deal Russian asset Steve Witkoff presented that was dictated by Russia wasn't realistic, because it asked Ukraine to give up territory behind their fortified position that they hadn't yet lost in the war.

Ukraine is losing the war and doesn't have the forces to expel Russia from their territory. A negotiated peace means compromises from both sides, but more from the losing side. Russia has demonstrated they are taking this war seriously and are willing to fight for what they want; if Ukraine found that deal unacceptable that's their prerogative, but that means they will continue losing territory and soldiers until whatever deal is eventually reached, which will be worse for Ukraine than the previous one.

We know the deal that was negotiated by Ukraine and Russia in the first six weeks of the war: neutrality (no NATO), autonomy for the Donbas republics, limits on Ukraine's armed forces, and outside security guarantees. Russia was also seeking protections for Russian speakers, and agreed to withdraw to the pre-invasion borders. For whatever reason this deal wasn't acceptable to Ukraine (it was widely reported that this was due to finding the war crimes in Bucha but we know negotiators continued to plug away for months on the deal after that; I have my own suspicions as to the reason) so the war continued and they'll never get those terms again.

I was shocked at the scale of Russian humiliation when I read those terms. That deal would have allowed Ukraine to declare victory even if Russia got its main ask, which emphasizes how important keeping Ukraine out of NATO was for Russia.

> Russia's border with NATO has greatly increased, so if you believe their propaganda that this was all about proximity to NATO, that's not exactly a win.

Sweden and Finland combined have about three-fourths of Ukraine's population and nowhere near the stockpiles Ukraine did. They have the same economic and industrial headaches as the rest of Europe, and now new NATO obligations. Over time their military industries will decay under American influence just like the UK, France, Germany, etc., and if WW3 expands they will be the front lines. Not sure I'd be celebrating being the Eastern Front.

> I'd be curious to know a little more about what you mean when you say Russia's "central goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO", and that "this goal has been achieved".

While it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will join NATO before the end of active conflict or in the immediate aftermath, in the longer term I don't see that as a sure bet.

It comes down to nuclear weapons still existing, and the U.S. has a bunch aimed at Russia and vice versa. The Ukraine situation is essentially the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. I think the U.S. was right to stand up to the Soviets and negotiate a removal of those missiles because them being there would increase tensions and the chance of a nuclear exchange. Offensive or defensive missiles in Ukraine would do the same thing. The United States would embark on a Special Military Operation if Canada or Mexico signed a military agreement with Russia to station forces there.

Russia will not conquer all of Ukraine and Ukraine won't kick Russia out so there will be a negotiated peace to end the war. The problem for Ukraine is even if the lines freeze Russia can still lob more drones and missiles than they can. Kyiv's power and heating systems won't be completely repaired before winter and people aren't going to put up with another winter like 2025-2026. All of the points people bring up to argue that Russia is going to collapse or give up on the war apply more so to Ukraine. Any peace will be more on Russia's terms and will involve neutrality pledges and curbs on the size of Ukraine's military. Whoever agreed to provide Ukraine's security guarantees would have to be willing to go to war against Russia if Ukraine wanted to join NATO, and no one is willing to do that. The Biden and Trump administrations have both been clear the U.S. won't provide Ukraine any postwar guarantees.

NATO expansion as an issue used to be taken seriously because we used to have experts in the government. When the Clinton administration started exploring expansion they specifically knew to not mention Ukraine because that would be so outrageously provocative. People understood that the anti-Russian alliance expanding would be a problem for Russia. Jonathan Haslam wrote a good book called Hubris that goes into detail.
posted by Henry Fool at 8:11 PM

---------------------------

The fifth year of Russia's invasion is not beginning well for Moscow.

The Cuban missle crisis in reverse analogy doesn't make sense considering US missle put 15 nuclear-armed PGM-19 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Turkey.
If mexico and canada signed a treaty with Russia hey, great, they just would never
arrive
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 PM

---------------------------

This is probably a good time to say that the suggestion (implicit or explicit) that Ukraine is merely a pawn in a proxy war waged by the US/EU, that the continuation of the war is due to pressure on a hapless Ukraine from a scheming west, that this pressure is to blame for the failure of negotiations (and not a completely natural revulsion and horror on the part of Ukrainians to the atrocities at Bucha)... Obviously, that's a Russian talking point, but it's also really an abrogation of the agency and really the humanity of Ukrainians. Ukrainians are capable of deciding for themselves whether their country, their sovereignty, their rights are worth dying for. Suggesting they're just passive tools of western imperialist powers that are making that choice for them is pretty crappy. It's also something victims of Russian imperialism are sadly accustomed to.

Also--

That deal would have allowed Ukraine to declare victory even if Russia got its main ask, which emphasizes how important keeping Ukraine out of NATO was for Russia

Inasmuch as that was in fact Russia's main goal, that's not an "ask." If achieving your goal involves slaughtering 200,000 people in a war of imperialist conquest, it's not an "ask."
posted by Method Man at 9:31 PM

---------------------------

> Ukrainians are capable of deciding for themselves whether their country, their sovereignty, their rights are worth dying for.

The vast majority of people willing to die for Ukraine have signed up. They're not enough to stop Russia which is why hundreds of thousands have been forcibly conscripted, and even then manpower is the main problem for the AFU. I don't know how sending those men to die against their will is some celebration of agency.

If you lived in Canada and Trump decided to make your province the 51st state how many of your children would you support the government sending to die in a futile attempt to stop the superior force?
posted by Henry Fool at 10:11 PM

---------------------------

> Ukrainians are capable of deciding for themselves whether their country, their sovereignty, their rights are worth dying for.


Which Ukrainians? The ones getting western money or the ones getting beaten up and forced onto busses?
posted by Iax at 11:07 PM

---------------------------

> It will end when the cost of imperial ambition becomes unbearable for the Russian elite and the broader society.

Russian Airlines Skirt Sanctions to Keep Their Jets Flying - "Russia's Boeing and Airbus passenger planes are kept in the air with equipment and spare parts that move via an under-the-radar network passing through India, Turkey, the UAE and Kazakhstan, among others."

also btw...
The world's most surprising economic success story is North Korea - "Arms sales to Russia and goods from China provide boost, despite sanctions; 'the regime is wealthier than ever.'"

also booming? ukraine's defense industry...
-Long-Range Weapons Ukraine Has Developed Since Russia's 2022 Invasion
-Ukraine Begins Serial Production of 1KR1 Sapsan Ballistic Missile System
-Drone race: How Ukraine's defence tech redefined Russia's war
-The Ukrainian weapons boom catching Putin off guard
-Growing Ukrainian Involvement in the Middle East

> I'm reminded of playing Risk

there is another!* :P
"So Imperial is a game that looks like Risk in which it's World War I and all the forces of the world are fighting each other. But you don't play the countries. You play the shadowy investors trading investments in the countries in order to profit."
posted by kliuless at 1:06 AM

---------------------------

If you lived in Canada and Trump decided to make your province the 51st state how many of your children would you support the government sending to die in a futile attempt to stop the superior force?

All of them. Why should the war end until Russia is back behind the 1991 borders and they've paid reparations? You don't reward countries for invading.
posted by mikelieman at 4:29 AM

---------------------------

how many of your children would you support the government sending to die

Henry Fool has only been a member for a few months and the vast, vast majority of their comments express sentiments like "Russia and China are just too strong to resist", "NATO is a corrupt profit machine", "Democrats are useless".

Now, they seek to spread FUD about Canadian resistance.
posted by CynicalKnight at 5:04 AM

---------------------------

Paul Warburg: The Ukraine War is About to Get MUCH Worse for Russia Warburg has been posting videos about the war pretty much daily for a while. His viewpoint may be understood by learning his brother died while fighting on the Ukraine side - but his analysis draws on trustworthy looking sources. There is a lot, in term of both the military technology and Russian economic data, that is worth tracking just now.
posted by rongorongo at 5:19 AM

---------------------------

how many of your children would you support the government sending to die

Ukrainians have been forced to pay a terrible price for Russian aggression and they're paying it. They don't like it but it's not about liking it.
posted by mazola at 7:05 AM

---------------------------

CynicalKnight: Henry Fool has only been a member for a few months and the vast, vast majority of their comments express sentiments like "Russia and China are just too strong to resist",

I can't say I've noticed their comments before today. But, I sure did get a sense of, "Wow.... someone still thinks disinfo/negative propaganda on MF is worthwhile? Do we still have some Google juice?"

Speaking of:

"If you lived in Canada and Trump decided to make your province the 51st state how many of your children would you support the government sending to die in a futile attempt to stop the superior force?"

Henry Fool, did you just ask if Canadians prefer to die on their feet instead of live on their knees?
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 7:11 AM

---------------------------

a futile attempt to stop the superior force

Someone correct me if I am wrong, please. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was to last all of three days and new borders would be drawn after that.

So..... Ukraine's resistance over the last 4.5 years has been futile?
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 7:21 AM

---------------------------

If you lived in Canada and Trump decided to make your province the 51st state how many of your children would you support the government sending to die in a futile attempt to stop the superior force?

Go fuck yourself.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 7:43 AM

---------------------------