Ukraine is marooned in Russia's Kursk region's archipelago of attrition while Russia breaks through the Donbass impasse and into open operational space towards the Dnieper River
There is so much to learn in this article! You explained so well about military strategies.. now I can understand more about this war. Thank you very much, Kevin! You are such a good and iinsightful writer! Amazing article, indeed!
Thank you so much Claudia! I was a little worried it was getting too technical. I am very happy that you found it informative. It really means a lot to me to such kind feedback from you. You made my evening!
Kevin - great post as always. I constantly go back to the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets trapped in the West. Perhaps Russia can actually use this as part of negotiations and agree that a certain portion of this can be formally transferred both to the West and what remains of Ukraine as a form of soft “reparations”. However, Russia needs assurances that at least part of what remains of Ukraine will be part of the “Russian world”. In your opinion, is there a potential for a further (3rd) partition in which Western Ukraine, centered in Lviv, permanently joins the West and perhaps NATO? I’ve always said NATO is too invested not to get something at this point. Perhaps a share of the $300 billion and Western Ukraine?
Thanks William!! Absolutely, Russia will want NATO to take over Galicia. Russia doesn't want to occupy this troubled land. But they don't want it independent to become a sort of Eastern European Yemen from which attacks against Russia can be launched. If NATO takes it over, they will have to ensure the Ukrainian nationalists there do not devolve into a Houthi-style insurgent force.
The rest of Ukraine will be split between eastern areas which will be annexed by Russia and a central rump state that will get the Belarus treatment. Where the eastern border is drawn between these two entities depends on how quickly Ukraine surrenders.
The frozen central bank assets will be part of a larger negotiation over property confiscations by Russia of Western assets there and of the West of Russian and oligarchic property seizures. On top of this is the question of compensation for the Nord Stream attack. It serves Western interests to blame the attack on Ukraine, who are all tapped out and will never be able to pay any sort of compensation. It's interesting that as soon as Kiev launched the Kursk debacle, the West unambiguously pointed the finger of blame at Ukraine for the pipeline destruction. These negotiations will be complex and difficult and will follow any formal peace deal between Russia and what is left of Ukraine.
Yeah, I’m very curious how these negotiations will go. At this time it is difficulties to picture how (and with whom) will Russians down to negotiate .
Sometimes I think that considering the valuation of natural riches of the already annexed oblasts and the ones to come, RU just considers the frozen $300 billion as the cost of doing this …
On one hand, Russia has likely written off these assets. On the other hand, they will not want to set a legal precedent that allows the West to confiscate assets arbitrarily. From what I understand—though I am not a lawyer—the West has the right to freeze these assets during the conflict but must release them once hostilities conclude. The only exception would be if Russia were defeated and agreed to forfeit these assets as part of their surrender, which seems highly unlikely. Seizing the interest payments appears to be illegal, and this wealth will likely need to be compensated to Russia once the conflict ends. As for the seized property, it will take years to resolve, enriching many lawyers and accountants in the process.
Thanks! I agree on Odessa. Russia could hold it out as reward for proper behaviour by the future rump state Ukraine. For example, if a future Ukraine joins the BRICS+ and clearly rejects NATO then Russia will feel better about Ukraine keeping Odessa in order to avoid it becoming an economically unviable failed-state.
Very insightful, and I will be testing these ideas against the "more accurate" news and disclosures on TG. However, even if Zelensky is intent on creating a crisis that compels the "president", whoever that really is in the US, to act, that the American people are not up for the game. At all. This war of attrition again st Ukies has attrited the short attentions of Americans. They will never fight for VZ, who is the worst kind of insane narcissist and whose story is no longer of concern to Americans. Who are facing an economic crisis of their own. His timing is quite off, but then narcissism is a permanent affliction that only ends with rejection.
Thanks! I agree. I actually had a section explaining why the US, UK, Germany and France will not support any sort of NATO intervention but the piece was getting too long so I dropped it. I will add it to my next piece since it helps explain the hopelessness of Zelensky's gambit.
The ultra-nationalists in Kiev will definitely attempt to drag the west in, as their survival is at stake. I wouldn't put it past them to conduct much further and more serious escalations as the end gets closer. They will no doubt be helped by elements in western intel services who are also keen on a full scale war. As a thought exercise I would imagine what could possibly force a nato/US entry into the conflict? Then have a think along the operation northwoods scheme. imo this would involve an attack on western europe specifically a large US military base and or other large cities or infrastructure like ports etc.
I am certain at least a portion of the ultra-nationalist will devolve into a terrorist structure similar to the Organisation armée secrète (OAS) which emerged during the French defeat in Algeria. Where I can see NATO getting involved is in a "Stay Behind" operation similar to Operation Gladio during the Cold War. It seems Russia is on the verge of capturing large swarths of Ukrainian territory. So far Russia has had no problems with partisan attacks. In fact it is Ukraine who is suffering from vehicle burnings by partisans in Odessa and Kharkov. But once Russia swallows up a lot of territory, it is right up NATO's wheel house to assist Ukrainian insurgency activity. This is low cost and relatively low risk. Russia could always respond by inserting their own insurgents into European and American cities. Insurgents with drones may be in all of our near-futures.
At this stage I would be more concerned about a ukr and western intell services false flag in an attempt to force western intervention.
If I wanted to drag the US into the conflict I would target one of their military bases in Europe. Or some other US soft target in Europe and blame the russians
If Russia were to hit an airbase in Europe, it would be a tactical nuclear attack. The best I could see Ukrainian and rogue western intel services coming up with is a drone attack on a NATO base, which would be difficult to pin on Russia. They would have to have a satellite tracking or some evidence that the attack came from Russia. They may try something like this, perhaps in Romania, but the establishment in the US seems to have little appetite for a direct war with Russia at this point.
If they can spin the line that russia is shelling itself in belgorod, ,ZNPP and blew up its own nordstreme pipeline they can spin some sabotage false flag on a US base... reallty not that hard. And yes US not keen to enter a direct war hence why the false flag would have to be quite extreme. but yes unlikely..
Great article. I think getting NATO involved is Ukraine's peace plan and a counterbalance to Russia's escalation dominance. I don't know and can't guess how willing NATO actually is, so far the rhetoric has been all over the map and public opinion is not that supportive.
Thanks! I don't think NATO is the least bit interested in pulling Ukraine's chestnuts out of the fire. But if Russia moves on Odessa then there could be rumblings of an intervention, but even then the risks are too high for NATO to directly intervene.
There is so much to learn in this article! You explained so well about military strategies.. now I can understand more about this war. Thank you very much, Kevin! You are such a good and iinsightful writer! Amazing article, indeed!
Thank you so much Claudia! I was a little worried it was getting too technical. I am very happy that you found it informative. It really means a lot to me to such kind feedback from you. You made my evening!
Kevin - great post as always. I constantly go back to the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets trapped in the West. Perhaps Russia can actually use this as part of negotiations and agree that a certain portion of this can be formally transferred both to the West and what remains of Ukraine as a form of soft “reparations”. However, Russia needs assurances that at least part of what remains of Ukraine will be part of the “Russian world”. In your opinion, is there a potential for a further (3rd) partition in which Western Ukraine, centered in Lviv, permanently joins the West and perhaps NATO? I’ve always said NATO is too invested not to get something at this point. Perhaps a share of the $300 billion and Western Ukraine?
Thanks William!! Absolutely, Russia will want NATO to take over Galicia. Russia doesn't want to occupy this troubled land. But they don't want it independent to become a sort of Eastern European Yemen from which attacks against Russia can be launched. If NATO takes it over, they will have to ensure the Ukrainian nationalists there do not devolve into a Houthi-style insurgent force.
The rest of Ukraine will be split between eastern areas which will be annexed by Russia and a central rump state that will get the Belarus treatment. Where the eastern border is drawn between these two entities depends on how quickly Ukraine surrenders.
The frozen central bank assets will be part of a larger negotiation over property confiscations by Russia of Western assets there and of the West of Russian and oligarchic property seizures. On top of this is the question of compensation for the Nord Stream attack. It serves Western interests to blame the attack on Ukraine, who are all tapped out and will never be able to pay any sort of compensation. It's interesting that as soon as Kiev launched the Kursk debacle, the West unambiguously pointed the finger of blame at Ukraine for the pipeline destruction. These negotiations will be complex and difficult and will follow any formal peace deal between Russia and what is left of Ukraine.
Yeah, I’m very curious how these negotiations will go. At this time it is difficulties to picture how (and with whom) will Russians down to negotiate .
Sometimes I think that considering the valuation of natural riches of the already annexed oblasts and the ones to come, RU just considers the frozen $300 billion as the cost of doing this …
Still an illegal seizure ‘though.
On one hand, Russia has likely written off these assets. On the other hand, they will not want to set a legal precedent that allows the West to confiscate assets arbitrarily. From what I understand—though I am not a lawyer—the West has the right to freeze these assets during the conflict but must release them once hostilities conclude. The only exception would be if Russia were defeated and agreed to forfeit these assets as part of their surrender, which seems highly unlikely. Seizing the interest payments appears to be illegal, and this wealth will likely need to be compensated to Russia once the conflict ends. As for the seized property, it will take years to resolve, enriching many lawyers and accountants in the process.
Great writing (again)! IMHO, Odessa is the lynchpin of the SMO. That will allow Russia control of a very large part of the Black Sea.
Thanks! I agree on Odessa. Russia could hold it out as reward for proper behaviour by the future rump state Ukraine. For example, if a future Ukraine joins the BRICS+ and clearly rejects NATO then Russia will feel better about Ukraine keeping Odessa in order to avoid it becoming an economically unviable failed-state.
Excellent write up. And correct analysis of both Kiev and Moscow’s objectives 👍👍
Thank you!
Very insightful, and I will be testing these ideas against the "more accurate" news and disclosures on TG. However, even if Zelensky is intent on creating a crisis that compels the "president", whoever that really is in the US, to act, that the American people are not up for the game. At all. This war of attrition again st Ukies has attrited the short attentions of Americans. They will never fight for VZ, who is the worst kind of insane narcissist and whose story is no longer of concern to Americans. Who are facing an economic crisis of their own. His timing is quite off, but then narcissism is a permanent affliction that only ends with rejection.
Thanks! I agree. I actually had a section explaining why the US, UK, Germany and France will not support any sort of NATO intervention but the piece was getting too long so I dropped it. I will add it to my next piece since it helps explain the hopelessness of Zelensky's gambit.
The ultra-nationalists in Kiev will definitely attempt to drag the west in, as their survival is at stake. I wouldn't put it past them to conduct much further and more serious escalations as the end gets closer. They will no doubt be helped by elements in western intel services who are also keen on a full scale war. As a thought exercise I would imagine what could possibly force a nato/US entry into the conflict? Then have a think along the operation northwoods scheme. imo this would involve an attack on western europe specifically a large US military base and or other large cities or infrastructure like ports etc.
I am certain at least a portion of the ultra-nationalist will devolve into a terrorist structure similar to the Organisation armée secrète (OAS) which emerged during the French defeat in Algeria. Where I can see NATO getting involved is in a "Stay Behind" operation similar to Operation Gladio during the Cold War. It seems Russia is on the verge of capturing large swarths of Ukrainian territory. So far Russia has had no problems with partisan attacks. In fact it is Ukraine who is suffering from vehicle burnings by partisans in Odessa and Kharkov. But once Russia swallows up a lot of territory, it is right up NATO's wheel house to assist Ukrainian insurgency activity. This is low cost and relatively low risk. Russia could always respond by inserting their own insurgents into European and American cities. Insurgents with drones may be in all of our near-futures.
At this stage I would be more concerned about a ukr and western intell services false flag in an attempt to force western intervention.
If I wanted to drag the US into the conflict I would target one of their military bases in Europe. Or some other US soft target in Europe and blame the russians
If Russia were to hit an airbase in Europe, it would be a tactical nuclear attack. The best I could see Ukrainian and rogue western intel services coming up with is a drone attack on a NATO base, which would be difficult to pin on Russia. They would have to have a satellite tracking or some evidence that the attack came from Russia. They may try something like this, perhaps in Romania, but the establishment in the US seems to have little appetite for a direct war with Russia at this point.
If they can spin the line that russia is shelling itself in belgorod, ,ZNPP and blew up its own nordstreme pipeline they can spin some sabotage false flag on a US base... reallty not that hard. And yes US not keen to enter a direct war hence why the false flag would have to be quite extreme. but yes unlikely..
Great article. I think getting NATO involved is Ukraine's peace plan and a counterbalance to Russia's escalation dominance. I don't know and can't guess how willing NATO actually is, so far the rhetoric has been all over the map and public opinion is not that supportive.
Thanks! I don't think NATO is the least bit interested in pulling Ukraine's chestnuts out of the fire. But if Russia moves on Odessa then there could be rumblings of an intervention, but even then the risks are too high for NATO to directly intervene.