For me, the obvious off ramp is Zelensky agreeing to stand down as President. It allows Putin to claim he achieved his aim, whilst stil giving Ukraine the victory.
I can't see that ever happening.
The obvious flaw is that in the next election there's going to be very little "pro Russia" on the ballot paper, even with a Kremlin candidate, Kremlin money, and Kremlin influence in the counting I doubt they could pull off replacing him with anyone standing on anything other than a pro-West/NATO manifesto.
At the moment I think the likely end is a rout by the Russian military on the ground, coup (even if the next President is just a continuation in all but expansionist terms), and then repartitions paid in the form of natural gas to Europe to fund the rebuilding work. I think Putin knows this and that's why Nord Stream was sabotaged (they'd already turned it off so there was no short term reason for doing that).
For me, the obvious off ramp is Zelensky agreeing to stand down as President. It allows Putin to claim he achieved his aim, whilst stil giving Ukraine the victory.
But even if Putin agreed to withdraw his forces in exchange for that he's not going to withdraw to a pre-2014 state (there's no way he could sell that as a success) so unless Ukraine are forced into it (by the West stopping supplying lethal aid) it doesn't make sense for them to agree to that as there would be nothing stopping Russia rebuilding it's military and trying again in a couple of years. Ukraine wouldn't be in NATO by then and it's highly unlikely a separate defence pact would be signed by them with the US
then repartitions paid
How would that be enforced?
I mean it was difficult in the 1920's and the French occupied parts of Germany.
For me, the obvious off ramp is Zelensky agreeing to stand down as President. It allows Putin to claim he achieved his aim, whilst stil giving Ukraine the victory.
That's not going to happen. Ukraine is not going to make any concessions to Russia. The off-ramp is for Putin to withdraw his troops from Ukrainian territory. This whole thing is Putin's doing, it's not Ukraine's responsibility to help him out.
then repartitions paid
How would that be enforced?
I mean it was difficult in the 1920's and the French occupied parts of Germany.
For me, the obvious off ramp is Zelensky agreeing to stand down as President.
The democratically elected president steps down and Putin stays in power?
How would that be enforced?
I mean it was difficult in the 1920’s and the French occupied parts of Germany
Poland has just reminded Germany of an overdue payment from WW2
Poland has just reminded Germany of an overdue payment from WW2
At the end of the 2nd WW, Germany was occupied and it's government removed.
Are you suggesting that NATO or Ukraine invade Russia, occupy and remove it's government?
Are you suggesting that NATO or Ukraine invade Russia, occupy and remove it’s government?
I didn't think so. I was underlining your point that reparations are difficult to enforce, apologies if I misunderstood
They seem to have been created solely for that purpose anyway.
Annexing parts of Russia allows Putin to use more soldiers there without formally declaring war, as the Russian legal system allows for more deployment on Russian soil during peacetime. For example, if you are a soldier who volunteered to fight under contract (the contractniks) then you can, under peacetime rules, end your contract and go home at any time, unless you are fighting on Russian soil. Then you have to stay and Russia says you can go home.
Zelensky can walk away a hero and leave Putin a bruised and weakened shell. From what we’ve seen of his leadership I think he would very much step down if it meant achieving all his aims and saving lives.
I agree Dan, i think he would go if he thought it would work. But would it, what's an agreement with Putin worth? Not much according to the Minsk one.
.
IMO more likely is Russia continue to loose badly on the battlefield, a coup in Russia to overthrow Putin follows, new leader then agrees to withdraw from all Ukraine except, for instance, Crimea. New leader can say I'm great, we were losing badly but I've stopped the war *and* saved Crimea and Zalensky gets the credit for standing up to Russia and getting the Donbas back, win-wim for all except Putin.
Does this rely on the new Russian leader being trustworthy in his agreement or would giving NATO enough time to put some significant firepower on the border, along with bitter experience, be enough to ensure they couldn't break that agreement even if they wanted to?
Who thinks:
1/ Putin is still in power.
2/ There has been some negotiation.
1/ Yes (he has a very tight grip on power, that won't change no matter the outcome in Ukraine)
2/ Yes (but Ukraine and other Eastern European countries will not have faith in any new agreement)
This means there will be a standoff for years to come, even if the current war comes to an end. Nato, the EU, the UK and all partners of any kind with the countries most under threat will be under pressure to offer more help and joint protection in future. Russia will not be trusted. A lot of money and effort will have to be wasted keeping Russia in check. Which in itself is a win for Putin in many ways... he'll get to paint everyone else as increasing militarisation as a "threat" to Russia, and he'll have hit all countries to the West of Russia economically and politically as they are forced to focus on defence issues.
Not sure what him stepping down would achieve as Ukraine are united in his view point. Don't know what negotiations will achieve as, even if Russia is beaten back to their borders, they're not defeated.
Really dont know the end point to all of this. Even if Russia is beaten back to their borders there is no guarantee they wouldn't invade again or at least provoke Ukraine.
They need complete regime change. I think it is unlikely that the change in leadership would change the government/regime and I've heard there are some nasties waiting to take over. And I think there is only one way a regime change will happen... Basically stuck until the regime implodes itself or the people rise up (doubt).
Whoever replaces Putin will be whoever can get the loyalty of the security services. It won't be a liberal democrat, it will be a hard-right nationalist, someone who believes that Putin failed because he wasn't tough enough on Ukraine. They will not agree to withdraw from Ukraine, the idea that this war is going to end with a peace treaty is pure fantasy. It will end by Ukraine driving Russian forces out of Ukraine and the border being a heavily defended zone for decades to come.
And not just that border.
How would that be enforced?
My starter for 10 was Nord Stream, agree to buy Russian gas again at the market rate (because this will be over before we actually build any more wind farms or nuclear) but with the payment to Gazprom and the other shareholders capped at a rate that is just profitable for them, with the margin on top of that given to the Ukraine reconstruction fund?
It's a win for Nord Stream AG and it's shareholders as otherwise it's the threat of continued sanctions or Europe never buying from them again. And it doesn't need to directly affect the Kremlin so any new leader doesn't lose face forevermore.
Whoever replaces Putin will be whoever can get the loyalty of the security services.
I'm less convinced by this, too many ways it falls apart. Even if there was some shadowy ex-KGB person pulling Putin's strings and picking his replacement. Those people still have a motivation to get sanctions lifted so they can go on getting bungs from oligarchs.
I reckon most of what is said may happen, but Russia to retain Crimea for NATO and EU membership. The Donbas to be neutral.
but Russia to retain Crimea for NATO and EU membership. The Donbas to be neutral.
maybe crimea , tho I have my doubts
No way Dombas staying neutral will be accepted by Ukraine or many of the residents, I could see the hardcore russophiles fleeing if Ukraine takes it back
certainly in the recently recaptured regions the behaviour of the Russian military & failure to support local populace; food, power etc has turned many against Russia
The war ends with a coup. Someone removes Putin from power and then talks start to lift sanctions so they can get back to taking money from the common man.
Whatever Ukrainian territory Russia holds is used as a bargaining chip. If they don't hold any then some combination of oil, gas, nuclear disarmament and promises of not being bad is used instead.
The new leader gets to take credit for a new prosperous age for Russia albeit some people may still fall out of windows.
Zelensky is a Ukrainian hero and isn't going anywhere. He'll go down in history as one of the best leaders of any country and will win the next Ukrainian vote.
Once the war is over Ukraine will join the EU and NATO. They'll remain very close with the US and will receive bags of cash from the US and EU to rebuild Ukraine.
Those people still have a motivation to get sanctions lifted so they can go on getting bungs from oligarchs.
Sanctions aren't going to be lifted until Russia makes concessions that no right-wing Russian nationalist leader could accept because their followers wouldn't accept them. Autocratic leaders' primary motivation is regime survival, making concessions necessary to have sanctions lifted will make them look weak. Their only option is just to hunker down and refuse to compromise with the West.
nickc
Full MemberIt appears that the Russian forces are either retreating (in good order) or are suffering a rout. Either one is as likely as the other, we’re all trying to second guess through a fog of propaganda and Telegraph channels.
You can see two things happening over and over and it's the same thing really- shit morale. Every time Ukraine surrounds or threatens to surround an area, it collapses completely. And every time Russia tries to retreat, it's basically a rout. If they had well equipped, reliable troops in good shape, then the ukrainian pocket/salient strategy would be a massive risk since you can end up with huge resistance, but instead they're reliably collapsing. And of course retreating under pressure is famously difficult for even a well ordered well led army.
And the good thing is, every time it happens, it's more likely to happen again.
And the good thing is, every time it happens, it’s more likely to happen again.
Especially because the Russians are just abandoning all their equipment and leaving it for Ukraine to capture. After each rout, Ukraine ends up better equipped than they were before, while Russia ends up weaker. Reminds me of the painting, Remnants of an Army, that's probably what the Russian army will look like in a few months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remnants_of_an_Army
Once the war is over Ukraine will join the EU and NATO.
When the war is 'over' there's a significant chance there won't be a NATO or EU to join, let alone anything left of the Ukraine.
When the war is ‘over’ there’s a significant chance there won’t be a NATO or EU to join, let alone anything left of the Ukraine.
Dazh... put the sherry down. Russia's actions have increased the chances of countries pooling resources to maintain their defence. That applies not just to NATO & EU, but beyond the membership of both. If you going to go for the "there's no point in anything, we're all going to be nuked" response to everything anyone posts you're going to upset people needlessly (whether deliberate or not).
FYI, I haven’t heard any chat about POW’s but it’s bound to be a massive issue.
Our village group has just delivered 3 Ambulances from Deddington to Lviv, and some water purification tablets I bought as a group by months ago are finally there. 4m litres worth, held up by Brexit bulshit and red tape.
I reckon the "compromise" may be a straightforward ante bellum peace, or near to- a line is drawn, wherever it may be, and the sop given to Russia is no reparations. They can claim whatever they want "we've denazified it and now we can return home proudly", whatever, and it avoids the constant stress and likely- inevitable maybe- failure of any reparations settlement. It's not right, but it allows it to at least <look> like a mutual ceasefire not a defeat, and it's probably no great loss (since, as I say, reparations are appropriate and fair, but hard to actually do)
(the other one is to allow Putin and his select few to flee the country and let them keep some stolen money and live it up in an island paradise- a shit option but it gets out of the "what if he's got nothing to lose" scenario)
As's been stated many times Ukraine can't really settle for less because Russia have proven themselves absolutely untrustworthy- they need to retake as much as possible or it's just a continuation of the consumption of ukraine by small bites. That applies just the same to the nuclear threat- if it works once they're guaranteed to use it again, the world is made more dangerous by capitulating not less
When the war is ‘over’ there’s a significant chance there won’t be a NATO or EU to join, let alone anything left of the Ukraine.
Why do you persist with this line? What do you gain? If you're correct we'll all be dead so you won't get the chance to say "I told you so!"
The forum will be a nicer place after nuclear Armageddon though.....
the sop given to Russia is no reparations
Yeah, it is the "West" that'll pay to rebuild Ukraine (just as it paid to disarm it of its nuclear capacity). No point chasing money from the unwilling and unable.
No way Dombas staying neutral will be accepted by Ukraine or many of the residents,
Agreed, Ukraine want all their territory back.
Russia to retain Crimea
I think that's unlikely too. Prior to 2014 Crimea was (and therefore under international law still is) an Autonomous Republic of UKRAINE. I think Zelensky will really want it back especially as Putin cancelled the agreement under which the Black Sea fleet is stationed in Crimea, which means he'll have to park his boats elsewhere and remove all Russian military from Ukraine's soil.
Sanctions aren’t going to be lifted until Russia makes concessions that no right-wing Russian nationalist leader could accept because their followers wouldn’t accept them.
Which is precisely why they're likely to lead to a coup.
The two aspects we can agree on are that they're likely to be self serving, and likely to be nationalist. Neither criteria are going to be satisfied by being President of a bankrupt country as it falls apart into independent states.
I'd forgotten how moving that song is. In fact, I'd forgotten Sting could do anything moving! Off to listen to Fragile...
the other one is to allow Putin and his select few to flee the country and let them keep some stolen money and live it up in an island paradise- a shit option but it gets out of the “what if he’s got nothing to lose” scenario
This is standard operating procedure. It's about the only off-ramp that Putin will get, but I can't see him taking it. Ukraine isn't going to invade Russia and neither is NATO so Putin just needs to keep Russian security services on his side and he's perfectly safe staying in Russia. The Russian army isn't going to overthrow him and there isn't going to be a popular uprising. The only threat to Putin is the Russian security apparatus.
Many people are concerned that Putin has annexed the areas so that he can justify using nuclear weapons to defend them.
@shermer75 makes a good point
Annexing parts of Russia allows Putin to use more soldiers there without formally declaring war, as the Russian legal system allows for more deployment on Russian soil during peacetime.
If that's his logic, maybe nukes are less likely - if people have taken the wrong conclusion and feel intimidated, he's not going to correct that view.
If a coup is going to happen it'll happen before whatever kind of nuke is launched. No one wants to become a leader of country where everything is going to get worse because you've just nuked another country.
Do you let the mad man in charge go nuclear, which will severely hurt your finances or do you take him out, seize power, renegotiate sanctions and then get even richer?
Why do you persist with this line?
Maybe because I don't think people (not just on here BTW, but everywhere) really appreciate the danger of the nuclear aspect of this. This thread for example mostly talks about this war as a something like the first Iraq war where a country is invaded by an evil neighbour, which will have a conventional ending with one side as the victor. It's not and it won't be. It's more like the cuban missile crisis than Iraq v1. The stakes are too high to pursue a conventional all-out victory, yet I'm not seeing anyone talk about that. Instead all we have is chest-beating, bravado and deranged assumptions about soldiers not obeying orders to launch nukes or military coups to depose Putin. It's genuinely terrifying and feels like we're sleepwalking into oblivion.
As’s been stated many times Ukraine can’t really settle for less because Russia have proven themselves absolutely untrustworthy
I'm pretty sure that when they annexed Crimea, Putin said he wasn't interested in taking further Ukraine territory.
The Russian army isn’t going to overthrow him
Well, there are reports coming out today that parts of the Army (newly mobilised and those on contract) have not been paid, makes me wonder if the all those Wagner mercs have been checking their bank accounts too?
The Russian military high command is being forced to take the blame for the current losses with generals being scapegoated/sacked/captured/shot in the buttocks (if ever there was a photo that summed up the last 8 months...) etc..I do wonder how long it will be until some junior officers decide to take matters into their own hands, commandeer some (of the few remaining) tanks and head for Moscow for a full and frank exchange of views with the Government and FSB?
The revolution will not be televised, but it might be shown on TicToc..
I grew up watching Threads it scared the shit out of me. And deep down still does. But you cannot un-invent the nuclear threat, you just have to show Putin and his potential collaborators that this would be truly the endgame.
Just for some background, particularly with the the talk of nuclear weapons, this is The Chief of Defence Staff speaking back in March about Ukraine and the chance of this leading to nuclear weapons being used (Putin threatened this very early on). Calm, strong words...
Russia is a lesser power this week
The nuclear threat is real.
However, as others have pointed out, you cannot allow a murderous dictator to hold the World to ransom.
The Russian armed forces have proved to wholly inadequate.
The West must stand up to Putin, if we let him win by nuclear sabre rattling then where will it stop?
The West must stand up to Putin, if we let him win by nuclear sabre rattling then where will it stop?
Exactly. Turns out we can rattle back
