Interregnum ruckus in the US as Biden arguably attempts to execute his own geopolitical January 6th and paralyse Trump's revolutionary ambitions by launching American missiles deep into Russia.
Regarding Russian demands, I listened to a discussion with Fyodor Lukyanov on the Duran the other day, and he suggested that land was not the number one priority. Yes, the 4 Oblasts & Crimea are givens, but the primary goal is still pushing NATO back (i.e. preventing whatever is left of Ukraine from joining). Included in this is a requirement for a renegotiated European security framework that permanently resolves everyone's security issues (well, as much as possible anyway). The Russians do not want a temporary pause or leaving things unresolved so NATO can start another war in 5 years.
So yes, Putin is already committed to another year or two of war, and indeed, may eventually include the other 4 Oblasts you note (including Odessa) as these would help convince the West to give up completely, which makes a new security framework negotiation actually easier.
The West may eventually discuss a new security framework, which really means removing the missile sites from Romania and Poland, but they will try to link this to Russian disengagement from China, which will be a deal breaker for Moscow. Perhaps the best Russia can hope for is a disintegration of NATO sometime in the future, which would create a blank security slate, upon which the Eurasian powers would construct something new.
I listened to Glenn Diesen on Neutrality Studies and he referenced (as plenty of people have said throughout history) that Russia is not blessed with natural boundaries and that the Dnieper may be the best option. I do agree with that but leaving Kiev with access to the Black Sea is most likely not an option at this point.
I don’t see Russia ever directly attacking NATO. Decapitating Kiev is surely the next step at this point.
It’s true that there are few natural boundaries between Russia and Ukraine. While the Dnieper River might seem like a logical dividing line from a bird’s-eye view, a closer inspection reveals complexities. Several cities straddle both banks of the river, making it akin to using the Thames or the Seine as an international border—logistically and politically challenging.
The maximalist solution could be for Russia, if it takes Odessa, to also claim the right (west) bank of the Dnieper. However, this would include Kiev, which is likely a step too far. A more pragmatic resolution might involve Ukraine quickly agreeing to an armistice, retaining a portion of the left (east) bank of the Dnieper while also preserving Odessa and other key territories
I agree that Russia will not directly attack NATO, but indirect, covert actions are always possible. I suspect that Russia may take out the rail lines leading into Kiev or perhaps even the central station itself to stop Western leaders from showboating with Zelensky.
Regarding Russian demands, I listened to a discussion with Fyodor Lukyanov on the Duran the other day, and he suggested that land was not the number one priority. Yes, the 4 Oblasts & Crimea are givens, but the primary goal is still pushing NATO back (i.e. preventing whatever is left of Ukraine from joining). Included in this is a requirement for a renegotiated European security framework that permanently resolves everyone's security issues (well, as much as possible anyway). The Russians do not want a temporary pause or leaving things unresolved so NATO can start another war in 5 years.
So yes, Putin is already committed to another year or two of war, and indeed, may eventually include the other 4 Oblasts you note (including Odessa) as these would help convince the West to give up completely, which makes a new security framework negotiation actually easier.
The West may eventually discuss a new security framework, which really means removing the missile sites from Romania and Poland, but they will try to link this to Russian disengagement from China, which will be a deal breaker for Moscow. Perhaps the best Russia can hope for is a disintegration of NATO sometime in the future, which would create a blank security slate, upon which the Eurasian powers would construct something new.
I listened to Glenn Diesen on Neutrality Studies and he referenced (as plenty of people have said throughout history) that Russia is not blessed with natural boundaries and that the Dnieper may be the best option. I do agree with that but leaving Kiev with access to the Black Sea is most likely not an option at this point.
I don’t see Russia ever directly attacking NATO. Decapitating Kiev is surely the next step at this point.
It’s true that there are few natural boundaries between Russia and Ukraine. While the Dnieper River might seem like a logical dividing line from a bird’s-eye view, a closer inspection reveals complexities. Several cities straddle both banks of the river, making it akin to using the Thames or the Seine as an international border—logistically and politically challenging.
The maximalist solution could be for Russia, if it takes Odessa, to also claim the right (west) bank of the Dnieper. However, this would include Kiev, which is likely a step too far. A more pragmatic resolution might involve Ukraine quickly agreeing to an armistice, retaining a portion of the left (east) bank of the Dnieper while also preserving Odessa and other key territories
I agree that Russia will not directly attack NATO, but indirect, covert actions are always possible. I suspect that Russia may take out the rail lines leading into Kiev or perhaps even the central station itself to stop Western leaders from showboating with Zelensky.