How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, Machor said:

Contrarian take, FWIW. I do at least agree with the last paragraph I'm quoting below - all opposition in Russia has been crushed for good:

"What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?"

By Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html?referringSource=articleShare

"The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin catastrophically miscalculated."

"The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving exit: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions."

"But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?"

"When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?"

"Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s)."

"Combine that with Russia’s previous territorial seizures in Crimea (which has huge offshore energy fields) and the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk (which contain part of an enormous shale-gas field), as well as Putin’s bid to control most or all of Ukraine’s coastline, and the shape of Putin’s ambitions become clear. He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance."

"“Under the guise of an invasion, Putin is executing an enormous heist,” said Canadian energy expert David Knight Legg. As for what’s left of a mostly landlocked Ukraine, it will likely become a welfare case for the West, which will help pick up the tab for resettling Ukraine’s refugees to new homes outside of Russian control. In time, a Viktor Orban-like figure could take Ukraine’s presidency, imitating the strongman-style of politics that Putin prefers in his neighbors."

"If this analysis is right, then Putin doesn’t seem like the miscalculating loser his critics make him out to be."

"It also makes sense of his strategy of targeting civilians. More than simply a way of compensating for the incompetence of Russian troops, the mass killing of civilians puts immense pressure on Zelensky to agree to the very things Putin has demanded all along: territorial concessions and Ukrainian neutrality. The West will also look for any opportunity to de-escalate, especially as we convince ourselves that a mentally unstable Putin is prepared to use nuclear weapons."

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

 

 

I am biased against anything serial dumb-ss Bret Stephens says, but this is rich.  Putin could've just done a feint in the non-natural gas regions and then made his big push on the principal strategic sector.  Instead Putin gets his army smashed and still doesn't have the resources that Stephens thinks the wily genius is after.  Stephens I guess is taking a break from explaining to us plebians how the science for climate change isn't settled.  I wish NYTimes would fire him, he's a disgrace.

Putin didn't need to totally and completely F-- up this war in order to clamp down on dissidents.  What ridiculous crap.

 

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I am biased against anything serial dumb-ss Bret Stephens says, but this is rich.  Putin could've just done a feint in the non-natural gas regions and then made his big push on the principal strategic sector.  Instead Putin gets his army smashed and still doesn't have the resources that Stephens thinks the wily genius is after.  Stephens I guess is taking a break from explaining to us plebians how the science for climate change isn't settled.  I wish NYTimes would fire him, he's a disgrace.

Putin didn't need to totally and completely F-- up this war in order to clamp down on dissidents.  What ridiculous crap.

 

Even more to the point in terms of Putin's errors, he has made utterly clear the military and police forces that keep him in power that he considers their lives to be expendable poker chips that he can lose for his own amusement. That won't matter at all, until it matters a very great deal.

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Even more to the point in terms of Putin's errors, he has made utterly clear the military and police forces that keep him in power that he considers their lives to be expendable poker chips that he can lose for his own amusement. That won't matter at all, until it matters a very great deal.

I think getting the 4th guards tank brigade destroyed was pure genius!  Not to mention purging much of his officer corp!

[Fenris]

32 minutes ago, Machor said:

Contrarian take, FWIW. I do at least agree with the last paragraph I'm quoting below - all opposition in Russia has been crushed for good:

"What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?"

By Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html?referringSource=articleShare

"The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin catastrophically miscalculated."

"The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving exit: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions."

"But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?"

"When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?"

"Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s)."

"Combine that with Russia’s previous territorial seizures in Crimea (which has huge offshore energy fields) and the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk (which contain part of an enormous shale-gas field), as well as Putin’s bid to control most or all of Ukraine’s coastline, and the shape of Putin’s ambitions become clear. He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance."

"“Under the guise of an invasion, Putin is executing an enormous heist,” said Canadian energy expert David Knight Legg. As for what’s left of a mostly landlocked Ukraine, it will likely become a welfare case for the West, which will help pick up the tab for resettling Ukraine’s refugees to new homes outside of Russian control. In time, a Viktor Orban-like figure could take Ukraine’s presidency, imitating the strongman-style of politics that Putin prefers in his neighbors."

"If this analysis is right, then Putin doesn’t seem like the miscalculating loser his critics make him out to be."

"It also makes sense of his strategy of targeting civilians. More than simply a way of compensating for the incompetence of Russian troops, the mass killing of civilians puts immense pressure on Zelensky to agree to the very things Putin has demanded all along: territorial concessions and Ukrainian neutrality. The West will also look for any opportunity to de-escalate, especially as we convince ourselves that a mentally unstable Putin is prepared to use nuclear weapons."

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

 

 

For the sake of discussion... He makes it sound plausible enough and who knows maybe he is right but my questions are how would russia achieve these goals now that a very large chunk of their forces have been destroyed?  If the article is correct, russia committed an awful lot to something they didn't really want.  Also, re the energy resources, the invasion has pushed most of russia's energy clients away to either source them from elsewhere or accelerate towards green energy.  Russia can only have energy dominance if it has countries worth dominating to sell energy to.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Fenris

[danfrodo]

I think I get the gist of the article, it's just that he could've done all this at far lower cost and much faster if that had been his actual plan.  It's a nice what-if but it just doesn't fit the facts.  Putin thought he would get everything, including the natural gas, by an invasion/coup.  Now he's going to have to fight just for the gas.

[Vet 0369]

7 hours ago, Commanderski said:

Notice how most of them abandon their vehicles and run as far away as possible. Only the guys in the first vehicle seem to run to check on the one that got blown up.

Of course with the amount of casualties they've been sustaining you can't blame them for running like the wind.

The ones that ran to check on the others are the true leaders.

[billbindc]

52 minutes ago, Machor said:

 

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

 

 

A couple of things: 

1. Bret Stephens doesn't know anything at all about Russia. Zero. 

2. It's *very* early. The effects on the Russia economy have just begun, the war is still ongoing. 

3. Every war he fought before ended in victory. Not this one.

4. Every war he fought before didn't turn Russia into a pariah state. This one has and will.

5. It's very clear that there are strong divisions between the FSB/MOD/SVR/Presidential office that this war broke open.

6. Cargo 200 has just begun.

 

I could go on and on but you get the point. Stephens is a hack and you're better off ignoring him.

[Machor]

Edit: I was recommended to ignore Bret Stephens after posting this; leaving the post up for the sake of my replies to danfrodo and Fenris.

I am not out to defend the article; my take from it is that the Kremlin may not be in such a bad place as we take them to be. The next stage of the war, and whether Ukraine will be able to liberate territories in the east and south (BBC live just writing Mariupol is about to fall) will be decisive.

53 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Putin didn't need to totally and completely F-- up this war in order to clamp down on dissidents.

A clamp down like the one that exists now would've been unthinkable before the war - even ordinary people are now afraid to voice dissent, certainly in public. That wasn't the case before; 'they' came after people like Navalny and activists, not Sergei and Lena next door. Of course, the war itself could have been waged differently.

35 minutes ago, Fenris said:

the invasion has pushed most of russia's energy clients away to either source them from elsewhere or accelerate towards green energy.  Russia can only have energy dominance if it has countries worth dominating to sell energy to.

I am reminded of Putin's public 'address' to Greta Thunberg: He's convinced the global South will never move away from fossil fuels, and China is now the top creditor of the global South. I can see how he could count on shifting to new markets.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Machor
Credentials of author questioned.

[Fenris]

I know nothing of the author and I think it's fine enough to discuss different angles, nothing should be ruled out before taking a look at it (unless it has "truth" written in all caps).  As some of us have suggested, based the evidence we're choosing to follow it would seem to us the article's hypothesis would be difficult to realise.  Some points more so than others.  Time will tell.

 

[dan/california]

"and China is now the top creditor of the global South. I can see how he could count on shifting to new markets."

They won't get paid either, no one ever has. Lending money to poor countries is either charity or insanity. They simply don't have the economic resilience to survive shocks like... The Ukraine War. Indeed if a lot of people who owe China money get crushed by the current oil/food/commodity shock It will be one more thing for Xi to be peeved at Putin over. For that matter China imports oil, and grain, obviously they can withstand it, but again, another irritant.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

It makes me wonder how much of it is from looting?  Is this proof of how much of that they are doing?

Lots and lots of first hand accounts of looting, murder, rape, kidnapping, and the usual things one associates with this sort of war.  But there's also been some security camera footage going around of Russians "shopping".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, Fenris said:

I know nothing of the author and I think it's fine enough to discuss different angles, nothing should be ruled out before taking a look at it (unless it has "truth" written in all caps).  As some of us have suggested, based the evidence we're choosing to follow it would seem to us the article's hypothesis would be difficult to realise.  Some points more so than others.  Time will tell.

I agree that it's important to hear a variety of arguments and see what they bring to the table to discuss.  Even if it is utterly laughable, there's usually some value to it.  At the very least it gets people double checking to see if their own beliefs are solid.

As for the article in question, the argument is kinda like some escape artist chaining himself and dropping into a glass tank of water.  The viewers all see that he's not getting out and some more astute audience members recognize things aren't going according to plan.  The artist is drowning before their very eyes, but some idiot says "he's faking it and will then reveal that he did his greatest trick ever.  You just wait!".  And when they haul the body out he's still saying, "just wait for it!".  Then after he's pronounced dead he might finally say, "well, that didn't go well for him.  I knew it all along".

No authoritarian regime willfully commits 70% of his entire military (that is the current estimate) into a totally optional military campaign, that has already killed more soldiers than any previous war since WW2, as part of some masterful plan.

Steve

[akd]

2 hours ago, Machor said:

Contrarian take, FWIW. I do at least agree with the last paragraph I'm quoting below - all opposition in Russia has been crushed for good:

"What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?"

By Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/opinion/ukraine-war-putin.html?referringSource=articleShare

"The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin catastrophically miscalculated."

"The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving exit: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions."

"But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?"

"When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?"

"Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s)."

"Combine that with Russia’s previous territorial seizures in Crimea (which has huge offshore energy fields) and the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk (which contain part of an enormous shale-gas field), as well as Putin’s bid to control most or all of Ukraine’s coastline, and the shape of Putin’s ambitions become clear. He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance."

"“Under the guise of an invasion, Putin is executing an enormous heist,” said Canadian energy expert David Knight Legg. As for what’s left of a mostly landlocked Ukraine, it will likely become a welfare case for the West, which will help pick up the tab for resettling Ukraine’s refugees to new homes outside of Russian control. In time, a Viktor Orban-like figure could take Ukraine’s presidency, imitating the strongman-style of politics that Putin prefers in his neighbors."

"If this analysis is right, then Putin doesn’t seem like the miscalculating loser his critics make him out to be."

"It also makes sense of his strategy of targeting civilians. More than simply a way of compensating for the incompetence of Russian troops, the mass killing of civilians puts immense pressure on Zelensky to agree to the very things Putin has demanded all along: territorial concessions and Ukrainian neutrality. The West will also look for any opportunity to de-escalate, especially as we convince ourselves that a mentally unstable Putin is prepared to use nuclear weapons."

"Within Russia, the war has already served Putin’s political purposes. Many in the professional middle class — the people most sympathetic to dissidents like Aleksei Navalny — have gone into self-imposed exile. The remnants of a free press have been shuttered, probably for good. To the extent that Russia’s military has embarrassed itself, it is more likely to lead to a well-aimed purge from above than a broad revolution from below. Russia’s new energy riches could eventually help it shake loose the grip of sanctions."

 

 

Pray tell, how will they be developing these new energy resources?

[acrashb]

40 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Lending money to poor countries is either charity or insanity

It's more a way to enslave them and take their strategic assets, which has already happened (without googling, I recall some 3rd world country defaulting and handing over a port to China, or somefink like that).

[Erwin]

I still think the WSJ commentator is getting it right:

"The Ukraine incursion will end with a whimper:

• Hostilities will end after Putin has secured the land bridge in eastern Ukraine.
• NATO countries will breath a sigh of relief, but holler about how Russia will have to 'pay' for the incursion.
• Biden will boast that his leadership was successful.
• Russia will pay lip service to reparations, but cease after the sanctions are removed.
• Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries will revert back to energy reliance on Russia.
• NOTHING will change, save Putin getting more valuable land, ala Crimea.
• Putin will begin planning for 'annexing' the rest of Ukraine."

Also adding that Russia and China will continue to chip away at the US dollar's dominance and nations like SA, UAE, India and others will support the "new world order".

[dan/california]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree that it's important to hear a variety of arguments and see what they bring to the table to discuss.  Even if it is utterly laughable, there's usually some value to it.  At the very least it gets people double checking to see if their own beliefs are solid.

As for the article in question, the argument is kinda like some escape artist chaining himself and dropping into a glass tank of water.  The viewers all see that he's not getting out and some more astute audience members recognize things aren't going according to plan.  The artist is drowning before their very eyes, but some idiot says "he's faking it and will then reveal that he did his greatest trick ever.  You just wait!".  And when they haul the body out he's still saying, "just wait for it!".  Then after he's pronounced dead he might finally say, "well, that didn't go well for him.  I knew it all along".

No authoritarian regime willfully commits 70% of his entire military (that is the current estimate) into a totally optional military campaign, that has already killed more soldiers than any previous war since WW2, as part of some masterful plan.

Steve

it wouldn't be an intolerable loss rate, if the Russian army was past Paris and about to reach the English Channel. Since they are barely ~50 miles into Ukraine, and either barely holding that, or actively losing what few gains they have, utterly awful and getting worse is the kindest description I can come up with.

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, acrashb said:

It's more a way to enslave them and take their strategic assets, which has already happened (without googling, I recall some 3rd world country defaulting and handing over a port to China, or somefink like that).

Sri Lanka, I believe.

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, acrashb said:

It's more a way to enslave them and take their strategic assets, which has already happened (without googling, I recall some 3rd world country defaulting and handing over a port to China, or somefink like that).

Yeah but sooner or later a government starts a campaign to make EVERYTHING the evil foreigners fault, and then you have to fight, or fold.

[Kinophile]

"The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russia is deploying servicemen from military support units, including educational institutions, to replace combat losses.[1] Russian officer casualties and the decision to strip Russian training units of personnel will further impede the Russian military’s ability to train new conscripts and replacements. "

From latest ISW assessment.

Doesn't a Russian rebound from the stalled campaign, or even to hold on to what they have, utterly depend on the incoming manpower from reserves mobilization? Who will onboard them to handle the Ukrainian shark tank?

The Germans started stripping training personnel in late '44 (I think?).

You do that when 1) there's no one else and 2)you know training new ppl to a high standard is pointless - defeat will come sooner,or they will just die too easily for the effort to be worth it, or both. So just arm, clothe,, a few weeks "training" then into the Garthok lair with them.

nomnom.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Kinophile

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

"The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russia is deploying servicemen from military support units, including educational institutions, to replace combat losses.[1] Russian officer casualties and the decision to strip Russian training units of personnel will further impede the Russian military’s ability to train new conscripts and replacements. "

From latest ISW assessment.

Doesn't a Russian rebound from the stalled campaign, or even to hold on to what they have, utterly depend on the incoming manpower from reserves mobilization? Who will onboard them to handle the Ukrainian shark tank?

The Germans started stripping training personnel in late '44 (I think?).

You do that when 1) there's no one else and 2)you know training new ppl to a high standard is pointless - defeat will come sooner,or they will just die too easily for the effort to be worth it, or both. So just arm, clothe,, a few weeks "training" then into the Garthok lair with them.

nomnom.

The very unhappy people all over the Russian periphery  are going to notice that bases are just empty, and not just in their town/district/oblast.

[Battlefront.com]

44 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I still think the WSJ commentator is getting it right:

"The Ukraine incursion will end with a whimper:

• Hostilities will end after Putin has secured the land bridge in eastern Ukraine.
• NATO countries will breath a sigh of relief, but holler about how Russia will have to 'pay' for the incursion.
• Biden will boast that his leadership was successful.
• Russia will pay lip service to reparations, but cease after the sanctions are removed.
• Germany, Italy, Turkey and other countries will revert back to energy reliance on Russia.
• NOTHING will change, save Putin getting more valuable land, ala Crimea.
• Putin will begin planning for 'annexing' the rest of Ukraine."

Also adding that Russia and China will continue to chip away at the US dollar's dominance and nations like SA, UAE, India and others will support the "new world order".

Sniff... sniff... do I detect a whiff of long standing political bias in this WSJ analysis?  Oh wait, I farted.  Same smell, so easily confused.

Seriously, this is a total load of crap.

Hostilities will end when UKRAINE decides they will end.  Russia only has a say to the extent the give Ukraine the driver's seat.

Sure Putin is fantasizing about taking the rest of Ukraine, just as Hitler fantasized about taking Great Britain.  Planning for it doesn't make it plausible. 

Personally, I would love to see what Putin's plan is for annexing the rest of Ukraine, including all the parts it didn't get this time.  I mean, first he has to build an entirely fresh army first.  And to do that, he needs money and foreign technology, neither of which he has access to.

As for currently strong anti-Russian positions weakening, it is possible.  Though I think Russia will collapse before that happens.  And whatever climb down there is, it will be from an economically crippling height.  Whatever backsliding there might be, it's not going to really help Russia strategically.

WSJ is apparently pays people to write uniformed nonsense just like NYT.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

"The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russia is deploying servicemen from military support units, including educational institutions, to replace combat losses.[1] Russian officer casualties and the decision to strip Russian training units of personnel will further impede the Russian military’s ability to train new conscripts and replacements. "

This is something I address a couple days ago in response to JonS' discussion about Russia training up another 100k soldiers.  Hard to train new conscripts when the instructors are being turned into sunflower fertilizer or, if they are lucky, sitting around in Belarus trying to look intimidating.

Steve

[sross112]

The stuff in Bret Stephens article are consequences of this war, but I believe they are unintended consequences. Putin isn't stupid but he made a very poor choice initiating this conflict. He is now presented with a bunch of busted eggs that he needs to make an omelet out of. 

I don't think Putin falls after this. He will remain in power and his position will probably be strengthened when the dust settles. The failure in Ukraine gives the impetus for a lot of finger pointing and blame slinging and of course it will land on those that aren't 100% in his corner. He has removed the main public opposition and now he gets to clean up what other bumps may be in his way or he believes are in his way.

It is easy to spin a defeat as he controls the information. He can feed the people his story of fighting the good fight against the evil western nazis and trying to protect the motherland. He can let them all know how it was all wrapped up before they were betrayed by whoever he wants to say dropped the ball. They were bribed by the west and sacrificed all your sons for their greed, but don't worry, they'll be taken care of. Then those people and all their friends and family are tried, sentenced and placed in gulag's. He comes out as the father that is doing his best for a nation surrounded by evil and whatever pain is caused by the sanctions and rebuilding the military to better size and capability must be heroically endured for the continued survival of good ole mother Russia.

Of course the west will fall for the rhetoric as well, not really, but in order to lessen sanctions and get cheap energy several nations will resume business with them. I don't think private industry will be in a big hurry to go back in but maybe eventually. In the end it is all about money so with some super sweet incentives I'm sure it will happen. Over the next few years they will work really hard to open the new markets to the south and further strengthen economic ties to India and the middle east. They will be down but they won't be out. And they'll be back. Might take 20 years but Ukraine will always have to watch and wait. 

Ukraine will probably remain neutral and Nato will probably not want to try to induct them as they are scared and even after this will remain scared of upsetting Russia too much. What will probably happen is a new alliance of border nations. Poland, Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and I can see Turkey as well having a mutual defense pact. That should guarantee Russia is hemmed in for a long time. Russian can bluster all they want but they'd never be able to support a large enough military to confront that alliance. And all those countries except Turkey are rabidly opposed to Russia as they are neighbors and have dealt with their tendencies for centuries. Turkey I can see being part of it for economic and power reasons. They are expanding their military industrial capabilities and this would be a perfect market that they could join with some sort of caveat of being the sole supplier of certain weapons systems, etc.  

Just my thoughts and I'm probably wrong, but I could see it playing out that way. Of course there are 20 other ways it could play out and all we can do is make our guesses, watch, wait and see. No matter what plays out later I just hope after Ukraine finishes off the RA the west floods Ukraine with so much support to rebuild that it makes the Marshall Plan look like FEMA during hurricane Katrina.

[Kinophile]

36 minutes ago, Erwin said:

• Hostilities will end after Putin has secured the land bridge in eastern Ukraine.

That's a lot of big IFs right now.

1. IF he can secure it - and what does that look like? What does it take? Will it last? 

2. IF Ukraine agrees to end hostilities - which I doubt. This isn't 2016, the UA is not a crippled shell of itself and UKR's very existence had been specifically threatened.

3. Peace requires compromises, and those will need a referendum. I highly doubt any land bridge to Crimea will pass a referendum. Not just a civilian referendum but the UA will need to agree, either implicitly or overtly.

All those are a lot to expect to go right for Komrad Stalin-I-mean-Putin..

[Ts4EVER]

I dont think it will be back to the status quo after. China will not want to have the possibility of those sanctions, so they will start to create alternative institutions to the IWF, world bank etc. (already have their own SWIFT like system in place). If Ukraine wins this war, which seems more and more likely, it will still in hindsight be seen as a zenith of western power and the end of western led globalization.