The_Capt

Whoa, so you are saying that because of Russian war crimes, which absolutely no one is disagreeing with, democratic rights will be denied to the citizens of these regions? Indefinitely, it kind of sounds like you are promoting here, or at least a generation or two? Donbass and Crimea cannot have democracy because Russia killed off all the true-Ukrainians? So instead of Ukrainians being oppressed by Russians, we are trading people who see themselves as Russian being oppressed by Ukrainians? And we are back to Afghanistan... I honestly hope and strongly believe that the grown ups in Kyiv do not agree with what I think you are suggesting in the least, at least based on how well they have managed this war and its narratives so far. I do hope you can see my point that this a lot more complicated than win/loss, particularly when you tie those to lines on a map. I honestly hope and pray that justice is served to the Russians responsible for these crimes and this war are brought to account. I also strongly hope that as we look to investing hundreds of billions of dollars into Ukraine we will get a fully modern democratic partner that quickly and fairly ensures all its citizens are fully enfranchised and protected by its laws. I fervently hope that the post-conflict phase sees reconciliation and, if need be, realignments that reflect the will of the people - all done with the support of the international community. Here is the crazy thing about war, once the shooting stops, the hard part really begins.

No debate there, and I understand all about the displacement and occupation, but you are really sidestepping the question. This is a complicated one, well outside the stark digital calculus you have expressed in prosecuting this war, however it is an extremely important one. Ukraine has a whole set of issues within these regions beyond simple "take back-ness". Ok, so help me out here. What would the roadmap back to full citizenship and democratic rights of the people in this region look like then? Even people who do not want to be Ukrainian? We get Russia's terrible crimes and they will be held accountable for that but I am not sure how that figures into re-establishment of democracy in these regions. Are you suggesting that Russia killed off all the resisting Ukrainian-orientated people and so democracy will not work in these regions? There is probably truth to this, but are you then suggesting denying rights of citizenship to people who stayed, because they stayed? Yes, we know this, terrible and a violation of international law. Russia's feet will be held to the fire via sanctions and isolation until these are remedied. However, that could take years. So how long do Crimea and Donbass republics have to wait for enfranchisement? Your logic sounds dangerously like "until we get enough 'real-Ukrainians' back in", but I am sure you are not meaning that. No debate on the Russian BS and fake elections and referendums. However, it does not address the very real concern how Ukraine manages the re-taken regions in your "non-negotiable" scenario. How will democracy for the people living there be re-established? How will their militaries be demobilized and reintegrated? Will they be given a chance to have free-from-interference referendums to chose what nation they live in? Or are we setting ourselves up for more rule of the gun, here?

Now here is a very important question: Will Ukraine support free and fair (UN monitored) elections in these regions in order to allow citizens to decide their own nationality? Will Ukraine honor the choices made in these regions, even if the vote in significant areas leads to secession? More to the point, will Ukraine concede land to a democratic process? I think there is a mountain of evidence of Russian interference; however, there is clearly also a deeper issue here as well. One that should be addressed through democratic process.

Of course it is useless, the UA just took back all the LOCs it used to be attached to, that was not the point - it was a hypothetical. The point was that an counter-invasion of Russian territory is off the table, even where it would make sense because Russia does have an escalation line that Ukraine does not want to cross. You seem to be suggesting that the line does not exist at all. That Russia is completely all bluster and smoke. That no land within Ukraine nor the occupied regions would constitute, in Russian calculus a reason for escalation. You sound very confident that the value of re-securing the pre-2014 is much higher than any false-escalation narrative coming out of Russia. Cool, got it. Best Case scenario: Ukraine retakes all previously occupied regions, no escalation and Russia goes back to whatever mess it has created and tries to deal, but does not fall into Mad Max levels of governance. We rebuild Ukraine and pull into the western power sphere and risk manage whatever is left of Russia. Totally fair and this is definitely a possibility if the cards all line up - I do not share your optimism or certainty but I can definitely see your vision of reality. Worst case scenario: Is it likely, not so much; however, we are a lot closer to it than we were in Jan - I think we can agree on that much, or maybe not. I think the biggest difference between our two positions is that I recognize that there is a spectrum of outcomes that we - the west and Ukraine - can still call victory that are less than your vision. I also think that you have dismissed the worse case scenario largely based on assumptions - some are very good assumptions; however, I am not sure I would be willing to bet on all of them. Further, in my experience, when someone is pushing the best case this hard, I immediately get nervous because we never get the best case scenario. In reality, I do not think your best case or the worst case will happen. We will land in a stable but crappy spot where no one is happy but they can live with it. For example, I fundamentally challenge the idea that Ukrainian security and by extension western security is tied directly to real estate. It is tied to relationships, which we can solve for once the shooting stops, regardless of where lines are drawn. I hope those lines are at the original Ukrainian border, but I also think we will live with less. I base this on a lot of experience, but even that has limited use here, because we have never really been here before.

Oh no we pretty much all got your point. I was attempting to elevate the discussion past your personal grievances and back to the root issue at hand. But of course, we all know you have been wronged, it is a subject you have not been exactly shy about expressing. We can only hope that this alleged injustice can be addressed in the fullness of time.

Admitting this makes me a little sick, like watching a Devo concert, but both Crimea and Donbass may require an international UN led post-conflict action. Putin has to go; however, if we got a "reasonable" Russian government (big "if"), there is likely scope for UN missions to guarantor peace and security in these regions until things can be sorted out. For example, these regions need free, fair and UN monitored elections in order to determine their fates, not more artillery. Access to Sevastopol should ultimately be decided by the people who live there. If they decide that they are Ukrainian and that Russia should be expelled to the end of time, so be it. If they decide the other way, also so be it; however, that choice must be made free from guns from either side in the end, and here an international body like the UN (shudder) may have its day. So yes, and it hurts me to say it, a ZOS and peacekeeping mission, along with DDR and elections monitoring/support is one way that thing thing could be defused. Again, both parties need to agree though. Ukraine will get a lot of pressure from the West but Russia is the crazy in the room and needs to stop being all "rabbit boiling-girlfriend" about this.

No whispers on my end and I could not use them even if there were. Striking back and taking back are two very different things. I stated this way back, btw, but it got lost. I have always been concerned over the Crimea and how it fits into a Ukrainian victory. I think the UA can hammer away at clear military targets in Crimea with abandon. It is when/if the UA actually arrives in Sevastopol that I start to wonder. Again, if Russia collapsed as a state or a new government come in, well all bets are off. However, with the current regime in power the loss of Sevastopol is about as palatable as the loss of Norfolk would be to the US. That has nothing to do with the noises coming out of the Kremlin, it is a real consideration going into this war. It has been from the start. Look, lets go absurdum here for a moment. Let say the UA rolls right over the border and Belgorod. Based on the law of armed conflict, they are perfectly within their rights to attack legitimate military targets that support or act as staging bases in that city. Belgorod is about 30km from the border and well within what the UA has demonstrated it is capable of - then why aren't they? Well, likely because they know it would risk triggering an escalation that no one wants. Ok, maybe the Russians are full of crap and the UA takes Belgorod and Russia does nothing...onto Moscow? I know it is stupid and never going to happen but the point is that Russia does have an existential line somewhere that leads us into very dark places. Places where the cost of admission far outstrips this entire war. So, is Crimea one of those places? I honestly do not know. Even before 2014, when Crimea was part of the Ukraine, the Russians had freedom to use Sevastopol. I am pretty sure that deal is off the table, so Crimea back in Ukraine very likely means no Sevastopol for Russia, which makes me very nervous and always did. We can debate back and forth on this; however, we will not solve it here. This will be part of some very cold calculations in capitals across the west and the Kremlin itself. And again, I could be totally wrong. Maybe it is all bluster and BS, and Russia knows its nuclear arsenal is as effective as its mob of tanks in storage were. Or maybe there is no "red-line" for Russia and we are self-restraining for zero reason. However, from my point of view at least, there is a seed of doubt/concern, and I would be remiss not to put it out there so people can stay informed and use it, or not, in how they come to terms with this war for themselves. I would close this off with a bit of advice - avoid people who always and only tell you what you want to hear, they are most likely lying to you.

I think the other thing we are missing are a lot of the indicators and warnings that those in power have access to. The US and other western nations have enormous intelligence and surveillance apparatus, which right now is heavily pointed into the region looking for far more signs and signals than we have access to. Putin can say whatever he wants but the US can see what is being gassed up and positioned, it likely has ears into the C2 structure in the RA that controls the systems. So on the outside, here, it is hard to see what is really brinksmanship and what is just posturing. Clearly the US has signaled that strikes deeper into Russia are off the table, and they likely have some good reasons for this, ones that are nothing to do with Putin. That all said, we are all still people and human error is a nasty reality.

Ok, so let's try and have an actual conversation about all this. Why not? It is "forbidden discussions" week on the thread while we wait for the UA to reload. First, lets put the emotion to one side for a moment - we saw how well that worked last time - and try to arrive at common ground. I am not going to comment on forum policy or poor BFCElvis' endless and thankless work in trying to keep this place from become another internet cesspool - if you have a problem with forum policy, or felt you have been wronged in some way, take it up with him and BFC. So what to do about Russia? Russians everywhere? They started a land war in Europe and they are supporting it, to some extent, for 6 months while their military is, in part, committing what is pretty much confirmed as systemic war crimes. So how will justice be served in the prosecution of this war? How will the offenders be made to pay so that it serves as an example to those that would re-offend? Legally. The whole point of this war, and one of the big reasons why we care so much is that this is not just an unjustified invasion of Ukraine, it is an attack on the entire rules based international order. In 1949, we all sat down, even Russia within the USSR, and said that this sort of action was illegal. Its premise and definitely in its prosecution, by Russia, have been illegal within international law and the Law of Armed Conflict. Russia's position, beyond some very weak tea technical arguments - SMO, has been - "ya, so what are you going to do about it...we are Russia and have nukes?" That will not stand. It cannot stand. It threatens the entire scheme at its heart. That scheme, btw, pays for our lifestyles and guarantors the stability and security we need to thrive, get richer and fatter, and have the freedom to yell at each other over all sorts of stuff. So how will we put Russia back in the box? Well first steps are to ensure it gets the spanking it so much deserves on the battlefield. The next step, and it is very important, is to prosecute those responsible in Russia for this atrocity, within the frameworks of the law. "Oh but the law is so "woke", we need to get medieval here to send a real message!" 1. Shh, grown ups talking. 2. If we step outside the legal framework, the one we built, we will break it ourselves, which in many ways is worse. Don't believe me, well we have a convenient historical example - Iraq 2003. And before anyone freaks out, let me start by saying that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is not anywhere near what is happening in Ukraine. The legal justification for that war was "thin" but it adhered to the rules far closer than what we are seeing today. It was unsanctioned by UN, the evidence for the whole thing turned out to be incorrect; however, the US made a case for self-defence against a known international offender, one who had not only invaded another country but also threatened "the great Satan" repeatedly. Further the US prosecuted that war under the LOAC. However the repurcutions of that action, one the edge of legality in some places are still being felt today. In Putin's last speech he references "terror/terrorism" 5 times as as a justification for this war. The lesson here is that if we fracture to system of order, very bad things start to happen. So we will hold Russia accountable. We will demand reparations for lifting sanctions. We will demand the turning over of war criminals for prosecution. We will employ national security mechanisms to find and arrest anyone who supported Russia's war outside of the laws of whatever country they are in. And we will do so within the defined limitations of the law. Anything beyond that is a revenge fantasy that serves no real purpose in discussing this war. Now are we able to continue on in peace and harmony?

Gotta be honest, I am old fashion in a lot of ways, I really prefer my nuclear brinksmanship to be crystal clear for all parties. I read the transcript from that speech as well: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/69390 I have no doubt it was for domestic consumption; however, it is what they are consuming that makes me nervous. The logic chain is pretty simple: IF -Ukraine (or at least great swaths of it) are really Russian territory - they are going through legal show-elections to make it appear legit. THEN - any attacks on Russian sovereign territory, including the ones we say so, justify escalation in their defence. Booya, booya - nuclear weapons and hypersonic nonsense. I still believe that the Russian mechanism that actually controls these weapons is not so deluded as to start smoking its own supply, and that the specter of an actual nuclear exchange is low. However, we do know that Russia has a "red-line" somewhere - the reticence to provide the UA with weapons that can hit Moscow is wrapped up in this. [Aside: I think this is overly cautious to be honest. The US is likely so nested in the UA targeting cycle right now that any strategic strikes like that are not going to happen, and if they did there would be political repurcutions. In short, giving the UA capability to hit the entirety of occupied Ukraine and SLOC nodes within Russia is manageable.] Further that "red-line" is currently manned by people who thought it was a good idea to try a conventional war in Ukraine. I think our greatest concern is trying to determine where that "red-line" actually is, or is not. And finally, remove Putin and his power bloc, and the "red-line" also moves - hopefully not onto the floor.

So my math is not what it used to be but "forever" is longer than a decade. The original point was that the costs of this war to the west will exceed a single year of combat. I threw out a decade, largely based on history, and that included energy re-alignment in Europe. You countered by declaring that it will be solved by the end of the year....and then promptly supported my original argument, and somehow blamed it on global warming....? Energy is directly linked to cost. Germany is a rich nation and could easily access the energy it needs from Australia (apparently): https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-export-capacity-by-country/ However, that is not the issue, it is the cost of that energy. At an increased price, it has a direct impact on German economic growth because crazy as it sounds - we need energy for economic growth. I personally think your assessment of "forever" is inaccurate. A combination of technological advances on production/access and storage will hopefully drive prices down, as will market pressure and competition - Germany is more likely to buy LNG from US because it is closer than Australia, and therefore cheaper. Production increases also have an effect. In short, the price of energy to Europe will normalize over time and, adjusting for inflation, go back down to something that resembles pre-war conditions. My point was, and still is, that it will take more than a year for that to happen and that the cost of this war will carry over for some time - which is fine, I think the west is willing to pay that cost...but again, to a point, not limitless.

In Russia's case, Russia has to negotiate with Russia. All other negotiation is on the battlefield. And you are absolutely correct, it is not an entirely rational negotiation. This is what makes things tense, we have an irrational nuclear power that is losing a war, badly. I think we are depending on the rationality of the Russian people, which many do point out is problematic. Do not get me wrong - no matter where we land on a map, Russia needs to lose this war and needs to know it lost the war. We need it lose and we need it to know it has lost. We also need it to return to a functional state within the global order (that we built) - tall order. A lot of the heated debate we have had here is centered on the degree of that loss, and the conditions it will require to make it happen. This is linked to the degree that Ukraine needs to win - there is what is just and right, and then there is what is politically acceptable/desirable...and those two things rarely line up perfectly. I personally think that under Putin, Russia will not be able to negotiate out of this war. It will need a fatal collapse. The longer Putin remains in power the more stark that collapse will become. Remove Putin and enough of his power base, and we may be back to more rational players. However, in all of this we are largely at the mercy of the Russian people. We can influence them, currently by killing a lot of their sons; however, we can only do so much. So we get to another face of war...a violent negotiation that is almost always irrational at some level.

I did! Are we at the point where we are arguing past each other? Kind of feels like it. Retaking pre-2014 lines is not going to be quick, unless Russia collapses. In fact I am pretty sure there are a lot of people in this regions who won’t like it so an insurgency in the population is likely. A long drawn out war for that is what I am talking about. A year? Of course the west is going to continue the support for a year. If the UA can walk the RA back to the border in that time, hey great. Nuclear war. That. We are not going likely going to stay united in the west on the Crimea in the face of that. If the US responds to a battlefield nuclear weapon by wiping out the Black Sea Fleet we are in an 80s movie. And in this hypothetical we are doing this for Crimea? Sorry, I do not see it. Look, I honestly hope I am wrong. Again, I am not advocating any of this and clearly touched a nerve; however, I am not about living in an echo chamber either. This is my assessment. Disagree, post your own assessment, or go to another forum that tells you what you want to hear. Find me a war where total cost-less victory happens. WW2, nope cost a mint to rebuild Europe and Japan, and we got the Cold War as a consolation prize. Pick anyone, they all end with all sides coming to terms with a reality that does not match the one they went in wanting. No one ever gets 100 percent perfect endings, in order to do that your are by definition not at war. Last time. Russia must come to terms with how it is going to lose this war, and Ukraine with how it will win it. Neither of those end states will be a perfect vision of what either side wanted.

So nuclear “takes some time”, like maybe ten years? And by realign I mean get it back to pre-war prices and security. Germany had 55% of its gas from Russia https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/energy-crisis-germany-europe/ It will re-wire that but it is not going to be magically solved price-wise by next year, capitalism is good but not that good. Europe will get energy but getting back to pre-war prices is likely going to take some time. Unless you have some analysis that says otherwise…?

I gotta be honest. Military support is not what I am worried about. My major concern is the reconstruction bill when the shooting does stop. If we do not commit to that, or pawn it off to NGOs in some weird humanitarian aid scheme, we have failed. We are talking hundreds of billions to put Ukraine back in its feet and as soon as it falls off the front page we have a bad habit of moving on. That, plus the bruises from our other nation building ventures, is probably the biggest risk in this war to my eyes. If we do not set the conditions to win the peace and in doing so, securing against the next conflict, we pretty much went through all this for nothing.

No the Russians have definitely not won - hell they will be lucky to still have a country by the time this is over. I am saying that there is a likely limit to western support for this war and it lies somewhere in the Donbas and at the border to the Crimea. Be it because of nuclear escalation or fatigue. Sorry, but I am not invested in telling people what they want to hear - there are enough mouthpieces out there doing that - but how I see things. This is how I see things. You can disagree, I am not saying that I am absolutely correct and this is a unavoidable reality. I am saying that under the current conditions it is likely to happen. I am not advocating for this btw, my personal feelings are not part of this. This is how I expect things to go down on the current trajectory. Again, if things change, like a sudden collapse of the Russian power structure, then this is not the expected future anymore. However, on the train we are on...etc...etc.

So where on this thread or anywhere else for that matter will you find an analysis/assessment by me, or anyone else here for that matter that mirrors this? In fact we were all going the other way while mainstream analysis was saying above. One year?! Ok, I think we are done here - you can push back but you are crossing some lines here. We will be paying off this war for at least a decade, likely longer. The realignment of energy in Europe alone is going to take that long, let alone the reconstruction bill for Ukraine. The investment in NATO will likely go into the trillions in that time. You wanna push back with facts, sure let's hear em, but this is more a temper tantrum that the world is harsh and things are likely not going to go all the way you want. Or you could simply disagree with me and we shall see, but it appears that ship has sailed. So stamp your feet, hold your breath, it is not going to change likely endgame reality. Or I could lie to you and tell you that the west will stand behind Ukraine all the way to the 2013 border, even if it takes 10 years and a nuclear war...there, feel better?

Well as a non-US or UK citizen who fought in Afghanistan I would encourage you to widen that aperture just a bit. There were members from all across NATO on that mission and we all felt the loss when it went sideways. Sure resolve is strong now...will it hold if we see dragging this out for a few more acres of blasted land? I am not so sure. And I am very sure that if Russia starts to threaten nuclear response and means it, we are going to have an internal conversation. In the western circles, Crimea and Donbass have become grey areas, particularly Crimea. I am not saying it is right, or fair but it is reality. Both areas have strong pro-Russian support - hell LNR and DPR have units fighting for the RA right now, some forced and others - not so sure. Can someone show some evidence that if Crimea had a fair and free election right now that it would vote to rejoin Ukraine? Again, based on how 2014 went down, there is doubt, uncertainty. So let me push this the other way. How far do you honestly think the western world is willing to go for Crimea? And be honest here, a limited exchange in Crimea (maybe), and escalation in the region to include Poland and the Baltics (less sure), New York City and/or Dallas (no f#cking way). The point is that there is a limit and I am sure we are going to approach it, so try not to be disappointed when it lands. If we are very lucky someone will take out Putin well before we hit this point, and things will work out - or at least the arguing will involve a whole lot less explosions.

I am not touching US politics with a 10 foot pole. I will call you on the fact that the US is not the only nation in the western world and all of those nations have to deal with this phenomenon, particularly those that sent people to fight and die in Afghanistan. Every nation has its own political dance to deal with and as this war drags on, or worse escalates, the calculus is more likely to change over time. We are not just talking about US support here.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere, revisionist state. Totally agree. I also agree that no small part of this is on us as we kinda lost the bubble on Russia after 2014 - pandemic did not help. If Russia pulls out nukes, it will not go well for Russia; however, we do not need/want the collateral. Ah, ok I think I see the misunderstanding. The Crimea and Donbass are not about coaxing or preserving Russia, in fact beyond the nuclear equation, they are barely about Russia at all. If we wanted to preserve Russia we would simply lift sanctions, although I am not entirely sure that would do it at this point. Those sanctions are there to stay, hell Europe looks like they are institutionalizing them. Military support is still strong and I do not think anyone has a problem with taking back every inch of post-2014 territory, and gleefully killing Russian soldiers while doing it. This is about "winning enough" so we can get off this thing before it goes into dark places. There is going to come a point where we are going to have to play the western nuclear card and simply say "ya go for it and see what happens" - and mean it. I am not sure Donbass and Crimea are it. Look and I get if people are sore and pissed off, disappointed but hear it from me, given with love and tenderness. I am also not sure that the political calculus of the western world supports dragging this war out for years to re-take the Crimea or Donbass under the current conditions. It may change as things unfold. For example if Russia does use battlefield nuclear weapons - we might balk, or we might double down, hard - "Here you go Ukraine, here are 100 HIMARs systems with ATACMS and a Wing of F-35s. We have been weirded out by the effect this war has had on tanks, so here is a Brigades worth of M1A1s to test things out". The West has in fact been remarkably restrained in its support - too restrained according to many - for this war. There are likely veils in the C4ISR world that we have not crossed as well. Anyway, whether we like it or not, all war is negotiation, and we are going to need to negotiate on this one. Probably earlier than many want to, sorry, it sucks but at the end of the day every nation has to protect the interests of its own citizenry. We want Russia back in a box, we do not want an uncontrolled nuclear escalation over the freakin Donbas. Nor do I think we want a 5 year grinding campaign to re-take the Crimea - we have been to that movie. Should every Ukrainian in Donbass and Crimea who want to live free of Russian oppression be able to do so, absolutely - we will pay billions to build them new cities to live in, they just might be in another place. Now if the UA were to take them very quickly, and Russia backs off...well we will all claim that great victory together. But hey, let's not get all down and despaired here. Ukraine took on a global power and is crushing it on the battlefield - I mean the UA is re-writing the book on modern warfare. Russia has been blunted, even if they do not know it yet, for at least a couple decades. I mean they are literally a punchline and this debacle rivals 1905 - now if we can just keep it from rolling into WW1, we are laughing.

Well I am glad you are clear because to be honest, having read this twice I cannot pull out what your thesis is here. I am not saying we want Russia as a Chinese gas station, in fact that is not aligned with western interests at all. Cheap energy for China or India, that they can get at bargain prices is not good for us. The fact that it is happening as a direct result of this war is a reality. Why? Because no one else but China, and India are going to do business with Russia...and they are going grind every concession our of Russia they can. Hell Putin just got publicly spanked by India, which part of "you are not in the game anymore" does Russia not understand? They do have nuclear weapons, it is the only reason why we are not doing airstrikes on Moscow, but they do nothing to promote or project Russian power in any meaningful way. Let me be absolutely clear, because there is likely a language barrier - I do not care what Russia wants or thinks in this regard, it is happening because any hope they had at projecting themselves as a global power started dying at the gates of Kyiv and pretty much collapsed at Kharkiv. Russia is currently a joke-state, with nukes...yay and it will be a de facto puppet state of the only global power willing to do business with them when the full bill comes due or become North Korea. I am really not sure what the point on hybrid warfare is to be honest. Russia used their version of hybrid warfare because they were at a disadvantage. One employs subversive strategies when one does not have hard power to get things done - about 2000 years of history back me up on that one. Russia's mistake was thinking it had enough hard power to to the job and get away with it. Perhaps it is on me. Let me try to be clearer: - We, in the west, do not want this war to drag on. We are bruised and battered from 30 years of cleaning up the worlds crap, more often than not making it worse when we do. If Ukraine looks like it is going to drag this out past the point it is in our interests we will get off the train. Not all at once but there will be splits, which will do Ukraine no favors post-war. - I am saying: We want Russia to remain a functional state within the context of the current global order. We want normalization with Russia so that it remains out of China's orbit, which is exactly where it is going on this trajectory, and continues to do business with the West (hopefully we are less exposed this time). We do not want a Russia in freefall - 6000 loose nukes on the dance floor et al. We do want Russia to 1) pay for this war in a meaningful way, 2) turn over war criminals for full prosecution and 3) a new regime in Russia because Putin is done. Until we get that then sanctions will very likely remain in place and the fun continues. My bet is that you will say "well that will never happen because, Russia", well then Russia can go to whatever grave it is digging for itself. The Russian people need to re-assert their power and make it happen or they deserve whatever happens next. We in the western world are the most powerful bloc in the history of humanity - we will deal with the consequences. - We do need to commit to finish this war to some sort of agreeable end state and then swiftly swing towards national reconstruction and bringing Ukraine into the western sphere (NATO, EU). - I do not want to accommodate Russia, or whatever. I definitely do not propose we abandon Ukraine now - sunk costs and all. I want stability and less crazy. We will keep on directly supporting the killing of Russians until it looks like we can get that, and where that lands with respect to lines on the map is secondary. I hope this clears thing up a bit.

Big difference in this instance...enormous difference. The USSR was a collection of functioning states, puppet states but still with the internal architecture to manage the state. When it fell apart, it fell apart into those functioning states. It was ugly and it was scary but it was orderly and manageable because we still had people in charge with whom to negotiate. If Russia falls apart, there are no guarantees that it will do so along structured lines - in fact history supports the idea that it will collapse into micro-social lines below the state. The immediate problem is that means there is no central control of the nuclear arsenal, and the next problem is that we in the West, have no idea who to negotiate with. I am glad you are "sure", it means you sleep well at night; however, there is no one in defence and security that is going to run with that unless they have no other choice. We cannot guarantee the alignment nor rationality of those "enclaves" and as such once they get their hands on nuclear weapons and become global powers, we have no idea how they may employ them. They might simply destroy them, in fact 99 percent can do exactly that - oh my what a wonderfully civilized world. That still leaves 60 rogue arrows out there that can either be employed for every reason under the rainbow, or worse, sold to someone who really wants to use them against us, each other or whatever their problem is. You are damned right we are afraid of a Russian total collapse.

Herein lies the central problem - we are living in a post-Afghanistan world. We are also living in a post-pandemic world - our resolve is shaken and will remain shaken. The single biggest fear for the West now in Ukraine, is that it becomes another Afghanistan. You have hit the nail directly on the head why western resolve is shakier. Hell, we can barely stand each other post-pandemic, let alone bighting off yet another war on the other side of the planet. Let alone one that could escalate into something really bad. This is the reason why a journey into pre-2014 lines, or dragging this out carries so much risk. The US and the West have been the global police force for 30 years and all it got us was unsolvable ethnic-based messes that we had to pay for and f#cking terrorism in our back yard. We are tired of doing this but are kind of stuck with it - turned out winning the Cold War meant holding the bag. China is in the backfield waiting for its moment and we want hands on the pens that re-write things so we are, again, stuck with the job. However, we do not want any more misadventures - they days of a great new world order and shining city on a hill are over - humanity is crazy and we are tired of managing it, especially when we have our own crazy to deal with. We need to stay committed and in this fight because it matters; however, the second it looks like it does not you can count on people voting with their...well, votes. We need to finish the job, but that job likely does not include what you are proposing under the current conditions. So everyone put on your negotiating shoes. You do not have to like it, nor does it make it "right", but it is the reality. I honestly hope I am wrong and either the RA falls, timed perfectly with a soft Russian power vacuum and Ukraine can take back those lines, and magically all those people that live there who prefer to be Russian either leave or change their minds. Then we can have peace and happiness. Russia will abandon autocrats and embrace real democracy and we can all link arms as we try and then put China back into a box - I can see the Federation starships from here. Just don't try and be too disappointed when that does not happen and we have to settle for bad and not worse.

So how does $150B sound? Worth more than the entire Donbas itself. https://diplomacy.state.gov/exhibits/diplomacy-is-our-mission/the-marshall-plan/#:~:text=Under the Marshall Plan%2C the,nations between 1948 and 1951. Now that commitment is on us in the West, we start going soft on it, hey fill your boots. It likely will not matter where the lines on the map wind up if we do not reconstruct Ukraine on a scale the matches or exceeds post-WW2. A shattered Ukraine will be picked up by China or fall apart and then what was the entire point of our support in this war?

And I will do you one better - we in the west do not want Russia to totally collapse. We definitely want regime change and for the current lot to be held accountable for egregious crimes against humanity. We want stability and re-normalization because it is what we are selling. We want a transition of power in Russia, and we want it to be as bloodless as possible. We have gone over this, a Russia in complete freefall is the exact opposite of stability and re-normalization. To the point that if it happens in its darkest incarnation, we could be talking western intervention. For the West this has always been about defeat of Russia in Ukraine. Not total defeat of Russia as a nation. We want it contained, restrained and on a short leash. We want it selling LNG to make reparation payments, we want it in between us and China, not in their back pocket. Now what we get is very likely another story.