He is quoted by RIA Novosti and Interfax here, therefore pretty reliable that he actually said it. The fact that he said anything at all is itself very, very telling. Here's why:

1. It acknowledges the pressure that is being created by Crimea's isolation. By extension, this says volumes about both the Ukrainian army's momentum and capabilities and also the limits and impotence of the Russians.

2. It shows an urgency and desperation that holding Crimea is still very important to them. But in acknowledging the crisis, it also implies that 'we are working on it'. Meaning - a solution isn't imminent. In a sense - it asks for patience.

3. Critically - They don't know what to do. If they did - this being a matter of logisitics, supply and tactical air defense - they would have simply done it, and wouldn't need empty platitudes directly from the president about unspecified "solutions".

4. It shows the situation cannot be ignored anymore and that a statement from the Tsar was necessary. Remember - this is a regime that didn't bother to make presidential statements when they were rolled back significantly in Kharkiv, Kherson counteroffensives, or when their sovreign territory was literally invaded in Kursk. They didnt even acknowledge losing their AWACS fleet, losing 1/3 of their strategic bombers in Operation Spiderweb. He didn't say anything to acknowledge the threat of the Wagner mutiny. He doesn't even make statement when Moscow itself is bombed. But losing control of Crimea is a completely differnt class of crisis to what's come before. Everything else has been survivable. Losing Crimea wouldn't be.

5. For all the talk of him being misinformed and kept in the dark - this statement suggests he is very aware of the situation and the criticality of saying it. I've never believed the "he's not being told the truth" garbage. This entire stupid project is his personal legacy. He is deply invested and the success of the war is not something he would delegate to the deliberately limited sycophants and not pay very close attention to. Everyday statement from him are made about "the war is going according to plan", "We are advancing in all directions", "we will prevail" nonsense. He almost never, ever makes specific statements about specific challenges or failures on any front. This is what makes this statement acknowleding Crimean difficulties interesting. He acknowledges it, because he must. Or someone with some influence over him has convinced him that he had to.

6. One of their responses has been to activate the "Good Tsar, Bad Boyars" Repeaters again. Forget Peskov - he's just a mannequin facing the world obtusely, saying nothing. Lavrov is a troll fool with thick skin cosplaying as a diplomat. The real Krelin spokemen for internal messaging and narrative testing are a different type. You've seen them, wondered who they are and where they come from. The come, say the same things for a while, then go, and new ones appear. Here's what I mean:

In Russia, some Z-Bloggers are permitted to speak very freely about how the nature of the problem isn't the invasion itself - the problem is russia is being too gentle. That they should unleash tactical nukes to assert their greatness and hasten their inevitable victory, because....Russia Stronk. They portray themselves as having inside knowlege, above average intellect, well spoken, yet Russian "Everyman" types who seem to know more than a private citizen should know. They have strong opinions about the macro strategic goals, but also the micro level experience of Russian individuals at the same time. And they also have a rare freedom to criticize the prosecution of the war that gets others arrested. Why is this tolerated? Pretty rare combination of skills and, maybe even courage? They don't hide their identities or locations - in fact, they speak specifically about who they are, where they're from. Well...it's not courage. And here's why. It's because they're intelligence agents, with a purpose, acting in a role called a Repeater that broadcasts a signal.

In the early days, it was separatist leader Strelkov who played this role, til he went too far criticizing Putin personally. Or maybe his message started to lose it's resonance. At any rate - this role has been taken over by a bearded nut named Evgeny Golman who pops up in different places, but usually releasing unhinged shouted messages from his car. He rants and raves about the failures in the invasion, the economy, the impacts to civilians, repeats his patriotic hatred of Ukrainans, and of course says that the problem isn't the war itself, it's that Russia is being too nice about things. They should progress to nukes, logically, because Russia is so awesome and victory is inevitable. Their audience is the russian thinking man, to be the voice of a more objective realistic view of things. The script, repeated over and over is the same under Golman as it was under Girkin.

Why are they allowed to say such things? Because they are following orders, and playing the role of the fervent nationalist who speaks for another crowd in a "FINALLY, someone said it" sort of role. Classic "Good Tsar, Bad Boyars" - that the president is being misled by corrupt and ineffective administrators. Shift the blame for failures away from the leader and onto faceless, nameless traitors inside the regime. This tactic has been used for centuries in time of crisis in Russia.

Repeaters serve another purpose. Since they are FSB agents, you can be very sure that the intelligence services pay close attention to who is listening to their messasge. Who likes it, who subscribes, who views, who reaches out to engage, who reposts their content. That is a more intelligent, more capable and more dangerous group of people to keep your eye on. In short - it gets a message out, tests the narrative, and gathers an audience of possibly-wavering doubters to keep a digital eye on. It's a trap to flush out potential conspirators among a more capable audience.

But back to Crimea - the fact he personally had to make a statement suggests this is a big problem and they don't know what to do about it. This is what the start of an accelerating process of a loss of control over a territory looks like.

Wonder how efficient the grain harvest is going to be this year with the price and general shortage of diesel. There's a saying that society is a couple missed paycheques away from anarchy. If the harvest fails and grain rots in the field, things will spiral quickly. Russian morons who 'aren't interested in politics' aren't coping well with the inconvenience of summertime fuel shortages will develop sharper opinions if they have to deal with this on an permanent basis. Their disbelief about fuel queues will progress to much more uncontrollable panic if they literally see countrymen start to starve and become refugees flooding into the cities. The average russian has very little empathy for anything outside of the 1 square foot of land they're standing on. But they are being now touched by the consequences of the war being fought in their name.

It's early days of this new phase of Russian Shortage, and the irreversible effects of an absolute energy crunch are going to be felt for years, even if the figthing stopped today. We may be on the cusp of a cascading worsening of everything that relies on logistics, and maybe even a series of total disasters and even an actual famine in parts of Russia during 2027 that can't be concealed. China and probably the Trump admin will be sending food aid to Russia within a year if they can't harvest their own. India is already sending fuel and asking Ukraine, nicely, not to destroy those imports in transit on humanitarian grounds.

One presidential statement is not the endgame. But the fact he had to acknowledge it at all is a MASSIVE signal that control of the entire project is slipping away from the Kremlin's grasp. And that their negotiating position, if one even exists, is getting worse.

What do you think? Let's have a chin wag.

Warning - Long. In a world of click-hungry rage bait, this is maybe the best, most concise analysis of the root causes of Putin's rise, his choice for war, how we got here, why Russia keeps smashing it's head against the rock of Ukraine long past the limits of logic and how this ultiamtely plays out. This is an entertaining, and thorough insider's analysis.

Without any spoilers - anyone who thinks you can negotiate a lasting end to this war with Putin in place is profoundly not grasping the situation. You can't negotiate with this mafia state - you can ONLY defeat it.

Major wars move through predictable phases, but it's hard to recognize them in the day to day minutiae while you're in them. It's only later that historians writing Wikipedia pages can properly couch the significance of this and that event, what the outcomes REALLY meant, and what they said about the final direction of travel for the conflict.

The Conflict Starts- the players decide what their strategic objectives are. They like their plans, whether it's on attack or defence, they like it enough to proceed. Attack? Fight? Flee? Brief or Long? How long can we stick to this phase? Everyone is pretty confident that they can or must prevail during Phase 1.

The Adjustments - Unless the outcome is quick, clear and decisive and the defending regime decides to flee or the agressor pulls back, Adjustments need to be made. This phase is strongly influenced by the respective sides' allies - how much, what kind and how long will support be counted on to continue? Tactical leaders will be replaced/scapegoated for failures, and Strategic ones may be changed out. Like when Westmoreland is replaced in Vietnam, McLelland in the U.S. Civil War, MacArthur in the Korean War. In Ukraine, this refers to when Zaluzhnyi and Shoigu step aside, and new leaders are brought in promising bold new ways of thinking. The political leadership doesn't change at this point, as they're pot committed to their original objectives. They're convinced, or tell themselves at least, that The Adjustments will salvage their original goals. How much they believe it is irrelevant - it just happens and tends to extend the war for both. These new commanders will get 2-3 years of leash - one year to change things, one year to assess the impact of those changes, and one year to explain their failures. If you have to change the overall leader again at this point - you're probably losing.

The Signal & The Lies - All possible adjustments have been made, and their impacts assessed. The parties are doing all they can. This is where The Leader tends to step in and take more personal control over battlefield decisions. Which almost never works and is immediately resented by miliary leadership. Firings accelerate, factions emerge, plots and coups start to germinate. The professional army is mostly spent, and the quality of The Average Fighting Man is in decline - but technology starts to advance more rapidly on both sides. Anything that actually works is quickly copied by the other side - Poison Gas, Tanks & Tactical Artillery in WW1, Aircraft Carriers & Air Power in WW2, Infantry ATGMs, SAMs & MANPADs over armor & aircraft during the various conflicts of the Cold War. This war's evolution is tactical battlefield coordination, scaled A.I. analysis/targeting & especially cost-effective Drones of every kind.

The eventual outcome of the war becomes pretty clear, but hubris & sunk cost sustains the killing. The Lying starts. To themsleves, to their armies, to their industries, to their bureaucrats, to the public. The realities of the conflict cut through regime propaganda - this is where rational actors taper off their goals and look for a settlement. Shortages of every kind reveal themselves - men, materiel, money, air & artillery support, fuel, food, ammo - there's not enough of anything. Lines remain frozen - because these societies can still give and take a punch - they both lack the incremental superiority over the other side that makes the others' position hopeless. In the Azeri-Armenia war, the difference was drones. Azeris were a 21st century army with drones, and Armenia was a 20th century army without them. Or without good allies either. They had no choice, and had to capitulate. The Ukraine war has no capability-imbalance at this point. Talk of peace begins -the settlement demands are still publicly unrealistic, but behind closed doors, the regimes want to surivive and talk more pragmatically. This is where the Iran-Iraq war ended, for example. We're here now with the Ukraine war. Or maybe just slightly past it. Even the Japanese in WW2 soooooort of stopped here, or slightly over into the next, optional phase.

The Madness - Irrational actors who are overinvested in the outcomes keep fighting long after the outcome is obvious. Military and domestic realities are ignored - whether it's on the offensive or defensive. It was well understood by 1943 that Germany would lose. More recently- like the Tamil Tigers fighting until their top leadership is literally eliminated in Sri Lanka. Like Gaddhafi, Ceaucescu, Hitler, Saddam, Assad - the leadership is not ever going to accept military defeat or disgrace. The conflict lasts until the leader is gone. Usually dead.

That's probably where we're at with Putin. There is absolutely no way he achieves his strategic goals of reconquering Ukraine and establishing it as a permanent colony. Zero chance. Regardless of how it happens, naturally or otherwise, this war lasts as long as he does, unfortunately.

Putin is an overpromoted gangster ghoul bully in the twilight of his life. There is no Ideological Spy -> Vengeful Tsar -> Glorious Restorer third act for him. Nothing that happens on any front in Ukraine is going to sway Putin to reasonableness. Forget Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporhizia - the realities of those places doesn't matter at all. The only front that can sway him is The Russian Front. Shortages of Gas, Manpower and economic collapse are the only thing that can force his hand. Ukraine would be wise to continue their current strategy to erode the Russian home front.

The Russian population in 2026 is NOT the same meek, uninformed serf-slave workforce of WW2 that can reolcate it's entire industrial base to the Urals to avoid invading Nazis. They won't work 24 hour industrial factory shifts, sustained by grim pots of rotten potatotes and sour cabbage, making low tech weapons tirelessly with a political commissar's pistol in their back. They can't even tolerate cancelling Crimean vacation plans and gas shortages.

Ukraine seems to realize this. They aren't close to cracking. But the russian population is. Once consumer spending and industry collapse, and in particular - when even the military can't or won't gather the resources requried to mush forward into an explosive death - then and ONLY then will The Madness end.

What do you think? Let's have a chin wag.

What people DO is much more important than what they Say. Especially when you're talking about an entity that lies as freely as the Russian government does. This is a curious bit of news, then. Why would Russia go to the trouble of closing border crossings.

Don't know, but here's some Idea Fuel:

A) A formal round of mobilization is indeed coming, and they want to limit the ability of their citizens to flee westward.

B) OR - in more conventional times, this would be an indicator that they are planning to attack Finland or the Baltics - suspend traffic to prioritize military movement.

C) Propaganda. It would fit into a larger pattern of simple, escalatory bluster that you're SUPER SERIOUS and might invade. But there hasn't been any kind of detectable troop and mass materiel build up reported that would suggest invasion.

If it's C), well it's a bit of a ham fisted way to go about it. There are lazier ways to rattle sabres.

If it's B) That's nuts. It's broadly and credibly thought that attacking NATO directly in 2026 is an idea even too insane for this Kremlin to consider. A fresh and clear eyed NATO force that's had time to prepare - even if Trump does his job and refuses American participation - is way more than capable of obliterating the current version of the Russian army. The Baltic fleet and Kaliningrad would be destroyed in a couple days. The attacking Russian forces might have some success in the tiny Baltics, but the Poles and Finns might bilaterally decide this is full scale war, that the war is not limited to Ukraine. And that, regardless of what the rest of NATO does, and regardless of Trump's inevitable 'this-isn't-our-war' spin, that the war is coming and better to fight it now while you're relatively strong and Russia is relatively weak. Better to fight an inevitable war of survival on someone else's territory, rather than your own.

Even in a reduced state, Russia might be able to take much of tiny Estonia and Latvia temporarily, but Finland and Poland are well-prepared forces, and territorially complete fantasies given Russia's inability to make serious inroads in just right-next-door Ukraine. Doing so - would also dispel any delusions that this war is about "internal" politics of trying to force regime change in Ukraine, but Russia has no intention of attacking NATO. It would confirm there are no limits to the war for Putin - this is the entire enchilada, the full restoration of the Russian Empire or bust. It would become impossible for serious minded people to consider this war as a contained thing drawing to it's conclusion. Unserious, Russian funded agents in the West like AfD, Front Nationale, Farage, Fico, Nowacki etc would say what they always say - and should, rightly, be ignored as the paid stooges that they are.

So - if you accepted that attacking NATO is a bridge too far, then you're back to A) - that this is still about Russia's goals in Ukraine and suggests pending internal mobilization.

Further mobilization is a very dangerous move for the Russians. They have an uncontrllable bleed going on in Ukraine. They are unable to move foward, drones are decimating their infilrtration tactics, and their standoff terror bombing is VERY expensive. The Ukrainians are keeping the efficiency of those attacks pretty low in the big picture, while increasing their own attack capabilities agains russian oil & gas facilities creating shortages that are now fully impossible to hide from civilians.

The thing about mobilizations is that they take time. If you need troops today, you needed to start training them 6 months ago. Even in the world of simple brutality that is Russia, they have to make these new recruits combat effective, or they'll die even faster than the ones being turned into noodle soup by drones. There will be unrest if they do a broad mobilization now. No question. And there will be MORE unrest of this next crop of low functioning grunts is plucked from the higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder than the backwater useless mouths, ne'er do wells and desperate paycheque chasers that went before them. In short - the recruitment targets will be harder to achieve, and if you're sane - which is not a given - you need to outfit and train this round of soldier slaves properly enough to make an actual difference than compared to what's happening today.

That's a very, very long shot. Nothing from Russia's performance over the last two years suggests that another 150-200k troops is going to make a lick of difference. It's just another 3-6 months worth of casualties to gain another destroyed town or two. But - it at least would answer the question 'why close the Western borders'.

Another round of mobilization would also mean this war continues for a couple more years. During which, Russia will be absorbing daily drone attacks, air defense assets will continue to dwindle, even worse gas shortages, high risk of economic collapse, continued high inflation, and a spiderweb of spreading shortages of anything that needs to be transported.

Pay attention to this one - somehow in Russia's plans, this makes sense. But it also might trigger a war-ending reaction at home.

What do you think? Let's have a chin wag.

They're asking the word 'offset' to carry a lot here. But i thought the bigger story here says a lot about the state of things for Russia in the late stage madness of this insane war.

Namely - suggesting that the eventual capture of a completely decimated industrial Donbas town of less than 3000 people somehow offsets the massie strategic collapse that is happening in the entire Crimean peninsula is truly absurd messaging, even for the Russians. Doubtful that any Russian with more than 3 brain cells would see this as good news compared to losing Crimea. But - in a sense, it's good news to Ukriane if they are trying to sell that message.

Size and perspective matters, especialy in war. Some context. Kostiantynivka is a smaller (former) glass-manufacturing city about 90km north of Donetsk city. It used to have about 60k people, but is now down to a tiny fraction of that. It's a tragedy for any Ukrainian cities to be lost and destoyed, just like Sieverodonetsk, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Pokrovsk and others before it. Crimea, on the other hand, is 27,000 square kilometers and has a population of 2.5 million. Not to mention vital Black Sea access and the port of Sevastopol. All of it is becoming unusable to the Russians.

Hoping the destruction of a grim industrial town after years of fighting offsets the bad news in Crimea? War isn't that sort of 1:1 transactional business. The loss of control in Crimea has virtually nothing to do with Kostiantynivka. It's not an either-or situaiton, and if Russia is going to celebrate infesting the charred rubble of this small town as being the equivalent of literally losing control of Crimea...well, that's certainly a choice.

The basic calculus of this war continues to tip in Ukraine's favor. Russia is losing faaaaaaaaaar more than Ukraine is. Hubris, sunk cost fallacy and sheer brutality keeps the Russians moving forward, slowly, for now, and only in areas with the simplest logistics for them. There'll come a time very quickly, where even with the depraved and cruel mentality of the Russian regime, that the price of detroying the next town over in the Donbas doesn't offset having lost control of Crimea. Moreover - then what? None of the cities lost to and destroyed by the Russians has created any kind of strategic momentum for them. And there's no certainty that they will be able to keep and rebuild these blasted piles of concrete dust, twisted rebar and charred brick into a prize that justified their losses.

Russia has long since passed the point where they should have stopped. At this point, this is simply industrial murder so that Pootz doesn't have to face reality. If this is their messaging....then carry on, Ukraine. It's laughable if they consider Kostiantynivka to be an acceptable offset to losing Crimea - they don't really, but it's where they find themselves. One hopes that the weight of the absurdity eventually dawns on them.

This black hearted ghoul is truly insane if this is really his starting point. But - glass half full - at least even he is talking about an end to the war. And it's an incredible display of weakness given your initial goals of complete and total conquest of Ukraine.

I mean - look where they started from. You have to factor in the Russian tradition for Maximalist Goals in "negotiations". Give nothing, demand everything, because eventually the soft, feckless pussies who value peace will give you something you didn't have before, and you'll get MOAR if you refuse to budge. That's the theory, anyways.

But there's a problem with that "do as we say....or else" strategy. It requires that the enemy fears what you might do next. It also assumes that the threat of implied violence is likely to be more pain than the enemy can tolerate, so they will HAVE to give you something to make it stop. That might have worked at the end of WW2 where the entire world was weary of war and really didn't want to have to stop the Red Army's Western advance. The fear of what Russia MIGHT do was more useful than what they actually COULD do. The latter was a question the west didn't really want to even ask then. But today - Russians have *shown *all they can do. They're at the limits of their power, and have no right to be demanding anything but a ceasefire. And unlike WW2, the rest of the world is not suffering at all, so they're not inclined to pressure Ukraine for a bad settlement. Russia's strategy is completely idiotic and divorced from reality.

Their suddenly-spooked civilian population is showing they don't like inflation, can't even cope with gas shortages and won't tolerate a general mobilization. This is not the same society that relocated it's entire industry to the Urals ahead of the invading Nazis and worked themselves to death at weapons factories on a diet of rotten potatoes and boiled cabbage with a political comissar's pistol in their back. Their flowchart has gone from Total Conquest & Denazification -> Annex 4 Ukrainian Oblasts -> Arbitrary 2022 Agreement that makes Ukraine Neutral, Caps the Army Size, Never NATO, Russian Veto Over Everything. Next up -> Please give us something. Even the existing lines of control are not sustainable for Russia. They're fighting with men, acting like pushing smooth brain grunts into softlty defended territory until they're killed somehow makes the ground turn from Blue to Red. Ukraine is fighting with drones and treating Russian infiltration like infestation - kill them now, soon, or later, but definitely eventually. This is not calculus that works for Russia. Much like the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Russia is finding that even if you CAN take ground, holding it is the harder part. Eventually, if all you can do on a plot of ground is wait to die, then it's not worthwhile, can't be pacified and you have to eventually retreat.

We are not in Berlin in 1945 - we are in Donetsk in 2026. And the peer to peer effectiveness and raw power of the Red Army then is light years past that of the Russian army today. We're at point like in The Matrix when Neo realizes he is able to actually fight the agents and understands how to win. At the simplest level - Ukraine can keep killing Russian solders with drones, and there's nothing Russia can do about it except leave. Take Crimea for example - Ukraine doesn't HAVE to conquer it. It just has to make the Russians leave. It's doing that very well.

I mean - this is just so ludicrous as a negotiating position as to not be taken seriously, at all. Saying that the 2022 position is still valid is like Hitler, in 1945 while cowering in a blasted bunker during the Battle of Berlin, demanding that Germany should still get to keep Northern France, Poland, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Norway and North Africa, because the state of things 4 years ago should be the basis for peace now. Oh, and that there should be no reparations or consequences for this entire, brutal, pointless war.

When you've already shot your wad, so to speak, and have no other way to escalate, then Maximalist Goals is a very bad strategy, as your REAL starting point is getting worse and worse every day. His capitol is under attack, his economy is about to implode, the army is spent, the soviet hardware inheritance is gone, your benefactor China is probably growing very impatient about this dragging on and affecting the timeline for their 'territorial grievance' campaign against Taiwan. The Gift of Trump has a window of opportunity that is closing rapdily. We're 4 months away from an American mid-term election that will either neuter Trump's policies, or send the U.S. spiraling into chaos as he tries to suspend voting. That's maybe the last card Putin is waiting to see played before deciding an acceptable endgame. At the very least, though you wanted Ukraine and the other former soviet colonies, destroying america is a pretty good consolation prize. Anyways - that's another discussion.

Back to Russia - Civilians even in the heart of the Empire of City-States that truly matter are feeling the strain of inflation, gas shortages, drone attacks and the realities of an aggresive invasion in their name that they can no longer be insulated from. It's not just something happening to impure Russian Federation minorities from the backwater colonies. And they are both more used to security and comfort and less susceptible to brazen, lazy propaganda than the babushkas and smooth brain peasants of the last century who may never have even seen a radio in their lives. They smell bullshit and the cleverest among them will find ways to avoid personal involvement. Russian society is cracking.

Russia has always bluffed a threat of violence and assumed that nobody was willing to suffer real pain. Now they reached too far, got their face smashed and yet they STILL are using the same bluff and bluster to try and squeeze out a peace they don't deserve. If you're Ukraine, you probably are best to respond in kind. Screw you, is our counter offer. You get nothing. We will continue to beseige Crimea, destroy your Oil & Gas infrastructure, and drone your low functioning grunts into canned spaghetti until you come back with a serious offer that starts at 2022 boundaries, then 2014 boundaries, then 1991 boundaries. Ukraine need not give them once square inch of ground until then. The lunacy of this war will be studied for thousands of years. The scale of the imperial self-own here is hard to comprehend in daily terms, but it's on par with the Persians deciding to go show Alexander who the big dog of the age was, and utterly wrecking their entire empire instead.

Make him squeal, draw it out, endure the short term pain for a long term peace. At best - he can probably only get a ceasefire while getting out of Zaporihzia & southern Kherson. And that Ukraine thinks they can regain the rest in a post-Putin power struggle later. Probably, Russia will publicly continue to say moronic things like this, but will be more conciliatory behind closed doors. Eventually when they do stop shooting, expect a full court press on how they defeated the wicked forces of NATO and heroically showed how serious they are about their security demands.

What do you think? Let's have a chin wag.

Russian negotiation tactics are a funny thing. It's been well documented that their truculence in negotations is as follows:

**Maximalist Goals! **- Concessions are for the loser. Concern for Life, Justice and Diplomacy are tools of the weak to keep down the strong. Demand everything, concede nothing, and eventually the other side will, out of their soft decadence, give you something to make it all stop. And then you have something you didn't have before!

Well - take a few steps back. War is politics by other means - a political objective is sought by force. In this case, Russia obviously WANTED regime change and territorial conquest. They aren't going to get either in this phase of their 1,000 year enslavement project, and they do know it.

So what does it all mean? Why is their official position, like in the article, "WE WILL NOT NEOGITATE!! THE WEST REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE CORE ISSUES BLAH BLAH BLAH BLYAT!. . But break it down a bit:

1. Russia can't advance anymore in any meaningful way. Their dual tactics of forcing men into holes and waiting to be killed + standoff terror attacks cannot possibly achieve their objectives.
2. Their leaders are not budging one inch, as they expect to be given something that rationalizes their idiotic invasion's massive losses. They should stop. They should've stopped a long time again. They can't stop now, as they'll be the ones making concessions. Concessions that probably roll them at LEAST back to 2022 boundaries, and maybe even 2014. 1991 seems unrealistic in the short term - there's no way to make them leave Donetsk or Luhansk easily. But - that's not necessary for Ukraine to Win. You can probably make them leave Crimea without the bloody business of kicking them out forcefully. That's what's happening right now. Crimea is being made untenable. Donetsk & Luhansk would have to come later, and by other means. If at all - there might be a realpolitik basis to just let portions go anyways as a buffer zone for lots of reasons.
3. They still act like they expect that the U.S. or EU will force Ukraine to make concessions. And in normal times, that might be viable. But their agent Trump is such a complete tool that Ukraine survives without direct US aid. He's alientated ALL of their traditional allies, and has pissed away any leverage they had about what MIGHT happen if the U.S. pulled suport. He just went ahead and did it - because he's an idiot - and guess what? The 2025 version of the Ukrainian army can continue to resist the 2025 version of the Russian one. Short of the U.S. invading Ukraine, they can't do anything else. Certainly the Iranian experience showed the limits of american air strikes when you're not willing to risk casualities in a ground war.
4. And Europe - which views the threat of a Russia rewarded for invasion very differently than the current American administration does - is willing to quietly and slowly defy impotent U.S. demands that Ukraine make permanent concessions.

Ukraine is now bombing even Moscow, nearly at will. The Russian population, so long complacent and feeling unaffected by the war beign fought in their name, is now feeling real pain. Nothing like what they have subjected Ukrainians to - but for them, real, undeniable pain and a confused anxiety as to why their Stronk Invincible Inevitable army can't protect them. Not just inflation, or sanctions, or gas prices. Huge explosions inside the Moscow city limits, while their Air Defense continues to show it's complete ineffectiveness.

WTF is Russia's political leadership doing? I dunno - but at some level, they are DEFINITELY stalling for time. Time for what? Who knows. Every day that goes by, their negotiating position gets worse and worse. Their small squad infiltration tactics & terror bombing is ineffective as a war winning strategy, and Ukraine can probably continue at this pace for a long, long time. Can the Russians? We'll see.

Diplomatically, and Militarily - the Russians seem stuck in the 20th century. Their Horde War philosophy STILL depends on rational actors on the West side who don't have much appetite for conflict because they're afraid of what the Russians might do. But - their bluff was called - and they're a joke, frankly. It turns out that what they CAN do is not that much. This chest-thumping assumption that they could roll from Poland to Portugal before anyone could do anything has proven to be a complete myth. They wish for peace-loving/feckless pussies in NATO to force Ukraine to concede, as would be more likely under Cold War rules where the threat of nuclear escalation trumped all. But that's also dead in the water, because the world realizes there's not really any basis for a nuclear war to happen when you're failing to win a war against your neighbour and the presumed enemy America is led by your best intelligence asset. They can't admit defeat to an inferior race like the Ukrainians. Hubris is a prison.

So what are the heck are they doing? Losing. Stalling for time. Preparing their bolt holes in case of a political collapse. Why aren't they talking seriously about realistic negotiations when their capital is being attacked daily? They can't win. They have already lost. But as optimistic as that sounds, this means their leadership is not acting rationally - this war will continue as long as Putin is alive or the army collapses completely.

So - let's frame the scenario. Things are as they are today in 2026 and Russia goes with a coordinated attack against the Baltics, as it seems the most likely path. Romania and Poland are bigger prizes, but NATO members more coldly critical to NATO than the Baltics. But also - WAY too big and strong by themselves for Russia to take on right now. And Ukraine is in the way anwyays. The russian attack today is not a stray drone on a fringe border region, or handfuls of little green men - it's a full combined arms assault, a new phase against even a single state. It can really ONLY be the Baltics.

**Would Germany and other NATO allies (at least the European ones) respond? In short - whether they would or not is less important than this: Russia is ACTING like they believe they would. **

Why say that? Because they haven't done it yet. And even though it presents certain risks, the reasonably achievable reward might be worth it. Russia is pot committed to a reasonable return on this war at this point. Putin's legacy and personal safety is tied to somehow getting a settlement he doesn't deserve. But - that's 2026 thinking - let's go back to 2022 and role-play as a maniacal Russian leader looking to cement his legacy as The Great Restorer:

First - what is The Prize? Remember that the state of play today is not what it was at the start of the war. Let's start with two scenarios starting in Feb 2022. Nukes are off the table, as they don't really achieve what you want in a war of conquest - you don't nuke what you claim is yours, and it's not a worthwhile to take control of an irradiated ashtray. And China won't let them - but that's a topic for another day. You're Putin on Feb 21, 2022. Here's your options.

1. Invade Ukraine

PROs:

• It has always been the crown jewel colony of the Russian empire. The industrial, agricultural, spiritual turbocharger
• Large Russian speaking population you hope will welcome you.
• Ethnic population 'close enough' to real russians to offset a century of demographic necropsy
• Other former soviet republics forced to rethink pivoting allegiances to China or the West
• Non-NATO member, don't have to worry about Art 5.
• You feel you are ready. You have invested years of FSB effort and billions in bribes into being a corrosive dickhead next door to keep Ukraine weak and occassionally compliant with puppets like Yanukovich.
• China's support is assured in a likely quid pro quo for their own planned invasion of Taiwan. They have your back - To protect it now, and put a dagger in it later.

CONs:

• It's really big and they might fight back
• Requires WAAAAY more of everything than the resources required to take than the Baltics. Missiles, navy, army, air force, logistics etc
• Requires much, MUCH larger occupation force. Mitigated in that probably expected a short, brutal campaign of extermination to cow the population into compliance, then use reconstitued domestic Berkut forces to keep order for a puppet regime
• Invetiably, but hopefully short term sanctions as the feckless pussies in the west just accept things as they are. This IS what they did in the earliest days, when it seemed like it would be a short affair. Sustained support didn't come until it was clear that Ukraine wasn't going to slip away into the pages of history like the Circassians (google it - it's a thing)

2. Invade the Baltics

PROs:

• Baltic Sea access to resolve bottlenecks in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad
• Only a couple hundred miles across. Probably can overwhelm any defences within 1-2 months tops with the 2022 version of your army
• Direct access from controlled borders
• When the shooting starts, NATO PROBABLY does not go to war against 2022 Russia over a Baltic state.
• If you win, you've destroyed Article 5 and permanently reduced NATO's standing

CONs:

• NATO countries, theoretically under Article 5 protection
• NATO troops stationed there would most certainly suffer casulaties
• Biden is still president in 2022, ensuring a more robust response than Krasnov
• If you invade the Baltics, there are no more delusions about your imperial intentions - you've attacked the strongest alliance in history as the first stroke. Invading Ukraine later becomes theoretically harder without any element of surprise. Any future build up or troop movements would be carefully monitored and an invasion assumed likely. And it probably generates a more robust level of NATO support for Ukraine regardless of the outcome of Phase 1.
• China PROBABLY won't offer the same level of support in the even of a brazen invasion against NATO countries than they will against Ukraine, which they will say is an issue of internal historic security as opposed to attacking even the fringes the world's strongest alliance. China doesn't want to even chance finding out that article 5 is stronger than they expect.

Summary: Ukraine is the bigger prize, with less baggage. The Baltics are the easier target with more entanglemens. Putin goes with Ukraine, expecting an easy collapse. We all know what has happened since.

But - it's now 2026, and the question is - would Germany and NATO allies actually fight back, with meaningful force, if an attack occurred today?

Probably they would. And probably it would be a quick overwhelming snapback against solely Russian military targets given the state of Russian air defense today. Every military target in Kaliningrad would be hit, the Baltic and Arctic Fleets would probably be wiped out in a day. Your subs would be stranded at sea unable to resupply and would be hunted down and destroyed within 3-6 months. In a month NATO would probably be enforcing a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine.

A No-fly zone over Ukraine is the end of the war, for this reason: Russia's overall strategy is as follows:

1. Pushing low functioning grunts into softly defended areas hoping organized Ukrainian defense will retreat because of logistic and resupply reasons. This isn't a great strategy, as they're getting droned into piles of oatmeal, either immediately, soon, or eventually.

2. Long range terror attacks from stand-off distance. Uses a lot of impossible to replace resources, but Ukraine can't really stop it by themselves.

3. Keep doing 1 & 2 until Ukraine gives you something to make it stop. This isn't a great strategy for an invader who wanted it all - but it IS what they're reduced to today.

#1 only works if Ukraine runs out of land to temporarily concede and agrees to stop killing infilrtration/occupation forces at some point.

#2 has never ever worked as a strategy to overthrow an industrial society. Not in the Battle of Britain, not in Vietnam, Not even with the full allied strategic bombing campaigns in WW2 against Germany and Japan, you needed a large ground force invasion right to center of the capitol for the former, and atomic weapons for the latter.

Ukraine can handle #1 by itself - Russia's tactics of pushing useless mouths forward to be droned will not achieve anything if Ukraine refuses to stop kiling them. Domestic drone production and deployment can bleed the Russian army white at this point.

As for #2 - a NATO no-fly zone would reduce Russia's stand off terror attacks to zero effectiveness, and would inevitably lead to NATO hitting irreplaceable Russian aircraft, to which Russia can't reasonably respond. Europe and more steps to escalate to, and Russia doesn't. NATO EU countries could send in ground forces (but probably wouldn't), and completely unrestrained volumes of air defense assets, since you are in open war against Russia at that point - no need to hold back domestic stockpiles like they are today. And they could unleash devastating economic penalties against russia. Remember - the EU is EVEN STILL buying LOTS of Russian energy, which would likely curtail in case of open conflict.

Thus - Neither #1 nor #2 by themsleves gets you anything justifying what you've lost in this historically stupid invasion. Attacking NATO directly at LEAST gets a more robust response that costs you Kaliningrad, the Atlantic Fleets, and most crucially, incurs a no-fly zone that ends the effectiveness of your air terror campaign. In effect - it ends the war and you'd end up with less in settlement than you have today.

In conclusion - whether NATO would retaliate or not is less important than the fact that Russia is acting like they think that they would. They're probably right - 2026 NATO is probably ready to respond to the 2026 version of the Russian Army. The 2022 version of the EU probably would have folded for a diplomatic solution, even with a Biden presidency providing a stiffer backbone to Article 5. It might well have been a much better idea for Russia to invade the Baltics instead of Ukraine. As Ukrainians have said - we are lucky they are so stupid.

Thoughts? Let's have a chin wag.

Through the idiotic cruelty of this totally unnecessary war, you'd be forgiven for asking - What The Hell is wrong with russians anwyays? We in the west can't undertand them in their deviousness, brutality and indifference to empathy and justice.

The simple platitudes are all there. Russians lie, they steal, they invade, they lack empathy, they are drunk, hyper macho chest-thumping meatheads, they kill their own, they are politcally meek and accepting of suffering, to the point where cruelty even to themselves is a badge of honor. Or if you fancy yourself as a high minded Russian siloviki, falling prey to others is something that happens to someone else who wasn't clever enough to stay out of the crosshairs of the local warlord du jour. A fatalism that fighting against power is useless, and that you are best to be apolitical, shrug your shoulders and avoid trouble at all costs. Or find your own path to profit from the corruption and control. In short - it is better to accept the brutality of centralized power, because it's better than the alternative, as defined by various traumatic times in Russia's existence. Denialism, machismo and crap leadership is a terrible mixture.

This is a long watch, but concise and worth a listen if you're interested in moving past the basic platitudes about the Russians being dumb, cruel, brutal. Even more high minded concepts as being expansionist and paranoid about their borders doesn't fully explain things, but it's all part of the receipe. Beevor goes into very serious yet consumable study of the timeline & roots of Russian brutality. A few choice phrases jumped out, including the romanticization of ruthlessness, conspcious cruelty, and the unapologetic expansionism, described as the 'anxious billionaire' who always wants more money, more land, more than he has now, lest it all crumble somehow. Certainly paints a picture of why Russia has never, ever, been content to stay within it's vast boundaries and not invade it's neighbors eventually. Conquest is necessary and virtuous - scaled up from the simple notion that power abused is power used.

It's also not sufficient to just say Russian brutality is because of the Mongols' subjugation, but it was insightful to be reminded that Russia was under Mongol control as long as America has even existed. It ain't everything, but it ain't nothing either.

So - Why the reliable brutality? Why the capacity for suffering and depravity? Why the indifference-to-glee of the suffering of others? Why the idiotic meat wave tactics? Why the political cruelty, even in peace time? Why the relentless rush to dominate? Why the romantic glorification of death and bone-crushing even the slightest opposition? Why are you entirely justified to kill for the vanity and glory of the Tsar? Don't your neighbors have a right to exist and propser?

Well - in a word - No. But that's a function of power - real or perceived. It's at least an ethos, one supposes. A bitter one, but - it does seem part of the Russian self-image. They have a right to steal, kill, lie, be corrosive and mischevious ALWAYS, and that brutality is always useful. Russia Stronk. The self-image that we COULD just roll from Poland to Portugal if we wanted. Diplomacy is a trick of the weak to keep down the strong, and that when we do choose to flex our power, you will squeal like pigs for a while, then accept your fate. Yes, our life sucks - but - as long as someone else is worse off, then that's (somehow) a win for me. Caring for others is fruitless and stupid - so get yours, and screw the other guy, before he screws you.

The clumsy theory I'd come to is that Russia's organizing principle, at the micro and macro, is "Do As I Say Or I'll Kill You". This exists at the local level where local bullies demand money from anyone weaker than them, neighborhood goons extort others in low level mafia style, bosses steal from employees, businesses and government officials steal from contracts and companies, and at the strategic political level, the Leader steals from the world inasmuch as his strength, opportunity and audaciousness allows.

And that it is hard to understand them in terms of power, truth and justice for the same reasons. The point of power IS to use it. And "theft" is expected at whatever your station in life. There's a classic phrase in Russian that 'the man who DOESN'T steal, steals from his family'. In other words - you should steal, because if you don't, someone else will. Russians sneer at the feckless pussies in the west, and might say that they adhere to an Old Order of the universe - that the true reality of the world is that life feeds on life, nature is cruel and if you don't accept that role as an abuser, you end up a victim. Or that cruelty is requried to keep a nation of dissimilar frontiers together - the colonies must be kept in meek, cowed compliance for the good of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Again, it is a simple concept - cruel, exploitative and unfair - but it IS at least an idea even the dumbest people understand.

Every Russian system of governance over the last 1,000 years has centralized power, kept institutions weak and retained the ability to brutalize anyone in your way in pursuit of your goals. Hence - "Do As I Say Or I'll Kill You" as the state motto. Keep the power centers concentrated, the serfs disorganized, improverished and humbled - because then they're easier to control. Nothing has truly changed - Russia never had a Magna Carta or Reformation. The base organizing principle has never evolved past the implicit threat of violence, at all levels.

As a result, the vast majority of Russians are themselves descended from people who didn't stand up to the local overlord and say "hey, you can't take our food, money and people! this isn't right". Those people ended up with their heads on a pole at the edge of town to serve as a warning. So - evolutionary theory gives you a population descended into a meek, accepting, politically neutered class for which the prospect of demanding rights and justice is the same as suicide. Or at least - if you do have subversive thoughts - you're able to keep them to yourself until a time is right for revolution, and there is a decent chance of keeping your head in the coming fight.

Perhaps it's a 1500 year project of abuse, so warped by the sustained cruelty that any fundamental change cannot happen. Unless there is a complete shattering of the self-image as an unapologetic, collective beast that must feed on others, or the same will inevitably happen to them. Why do they invade? Because they must. For control. Why do they accept terrible, abused lives? Well...what's the alternative? Why do they lie? Because what's the upside in telling the truth? All that really matters is desire and power, and if you don't pursue both, someone else will, and you'll end up on the wrong side of things. It's a tragic mindset - and frankly I don't see any way it will ever chage as long as there is a Russia.

The Ottoman Empire might be the best example - it behaved very much like Russia does, including invading Europe and absurd levels of ruthless power grabs interally and externally. It took over 300 years for the Ottoman empire to collapse into a stable rump state of Turkey, while it's most restless colonies in the Middle East are still afflicted by instability, violence and weak institutions to this day. If you were hoping for a happy ending, I'm sorry. The best I could offer is that maybe Russia is 100 years into a 150 to 200 year collapse, simliar to the Ottomans. They certainly do seem like they're in fatal decline, having lost power projection and allies in the former Soviet States, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Hamas, Hezbollah, Armenia etc. Expect their leaders of dwindling quality to become MORE hysterical about the state disintegration rather than to enact real reforms that would actually attract allies, investment and positive evolution.

Anyways - congrats if you read this far. Love your thoughts always, and eager for interesting discussion

Russians are simultaneously more and less stupid than they seem to be at the same time. They are really run by the intelligence services, and they often "test narratives" to see how messaging goes over with the populations. They use deliberate 'repeaters', messengers and role players within their sociey to gague themes to try and advance their goals. You see public figures following their scripts consistently, from froth-mouthed apocalyptic lunatics like Solovyev and Medvedev threatening to end the world, down to malcontent grunt Z-Bloggers like Girkin muttering tactical level failures, acting as a release valve for the failings of the state 'not going far enough'. The ones who are allowed to speak on an ongoing basis are sanctioned to do so, for reasons that make sense to the FSB.

Until recently, any public talk of even ACKNOWLEDGING, much less ending the SMO/ aka "War" would get you locked up for discrediting the army. Now, they are starting to seep out war-ending off-ramp strategies. This is the first time I've seen one around the idea that the war should be stopped "for the good of the economy". That sounds more high minded than verboten military or moral alternatives like "we're losing" or "it's the humane thing to do". At any rate, it's at least tolerated public dialogue that explicitly talks of ending the war. None of these narrative tests are accidental - some are outbursts, where the messager is locked up or killed - but this is different in that it's from a named public figure.

Having them say "it's for the good of the economy" allows them to at least try to avoid the humiliation of a completely stalled front that they have been unable to move substantially for nearly two years. It ignores their invasion's absolute failure, doesn't acknowledge that maybe little brother ukraine isn't an inherently inferior race, or that the entire country ackshually belongs to Rusia, because - reasons - and doesn't have a right to exist. It doesn't even mention NATO as the REAL reason why they aren't vacationing in Kyiv today.

It's all a colossal tragedy, of course. But putting that aside - it's both funny and somewhat pathetic that this is where they're at more than four years in having squandered their entire soviet inhertiance on a petty 20th century revenge project led by an overpromoted gangster ghoul. But - it's also a good thing that they're openly talking about how to exit an aggressive war of invasion while being WELL short of their goals of conquest.

Will be interesting to see if this "for the economy" theme persists as a face-saving tactic. What do you think?

Hi all. Time for a chin wag, share your thoughts, ideally in good faith. Let's start from here - Russia's Battle Plan Tactics at this point are basically as follows:

1. Front Line Infiltration - Bum rush small infiltration teams into softest areas possible, hope Ukraine's organized defenses retreat.

2. Terror From Distance - Long range attacks on infrastrcutre and civilian targets. You know - terrorism.

3. Keep doing 1 & 2, until Ukraine gives you something to make it stop.

What "works" as an infiltration strategy is not a great occupation strategy. The point of a war of conquest is to take and hold territory, and then get gains from it later.

There's literally thousands of videos of evidence of small <5 man teams griding forward, and then they get killed, either immediately, or eventually, or - Ukraine decides the area is not worth it and retreats a bit to the next line of defense. This appears to be a way of life right now - and is cost-ineffective from Russia's perspective. Thrusting a low-functioning grunt into a blasted puddle of grey rainwater only gives you the benefits of occupation if Ukraine agrees to stop killing them. Then they move from the battlefield into local barracks, reconstruction begins, and then the state reaps benefits from their newly stolen land.

PROBLEM FOR RUSSIA: But the hard limit here is - if Ukraine never stops killing your occupation forces. As seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - even if areas are temporarily 'pacified', the ongoing bleed of killing occupation forces is an open wound for an army. AND - reconstruction costs are expensive and are themselves, soft targets. Eventually, they have no choice but to assess it's not worth it, and leave.

Russia doesn't seem like they can

a) stop ukrainian drone production or

b) stop the effective deployment of drones on the battlefield.

Drones account for the VAST majority of Russian infantry deaths at this point, which makes Russian Tactic #1 - Send Infiltration Teams Forward To Die - totally ineffective as a war winning strategy until Ukraine decides to stop killing them.

So - Russian Tactic #2 - Terror From Distance - Ukraine can improve defences, but can't stop it completely, but - this has never been a successful way of defeating industrialized societies with strong international backing. You would need WW2-levels of sustained industrial heavy bombing, which would put their irreplaceable strategic bomber assets at grave risk of being destroyed. And which also, if you succeed, increases your reconstruction costs on territory you consider to be "yours". ANNNNND it increases the chance of humaniatian outcry and the creation of a no-fly zone from willing NATO partners. This strategy is designed to destroy societal infrastructure to the point where organized resistance is barely possible. It works in 3rd world countries, (Syria, Africa) that the West doesn't really care about, but doesn't work as well in more advanced societies with external backers who are pot committed to Ukraine's future existence.

PROBLEM FOR RUSSIA: Even a large stand-off bombing campaign is extremely resource intensive, uses finite lifespan of air assets you can't replace as fast as are being lost and depleted, uses EXPENSIVE and scarce inputs to manufacture. Probably, China will keep Russia JUST well enough supplied to keep this terror campaign going, but not well enough to enable Russia to rebuild a credible threat back to China itself down the line. The superior U.S. air force isn't doing very well in Iran with this strategy, seems reasonable to expect that the much shittier Russian air force doesn't have the jam to win the war by itself.

This war is an all-in bet for Russia, you would have to think. There wont' be another chance to conquer Ukraine for generations, and Russia is going to have some painful decades ahead as a global pariah and vassal of China after the shooting stops.

Nukes don't solve anything, and don't make a lot of sense when you're trying to steal land, population and industrial capacity. Destroying land you say is yours means you're shrinking The Prize of invasion. Russia's Infiltration and Terror Strategy probably has no realistic chance of achieving the strategic regime change and territorial seizure that Russia needs to make any kind of claim of victory.

So - what in the name of Vodka milkshakes do they do? Russian military Philosophy of the last century has been Horde War - an overwhelming mass of armor, artillery, men and cruelty. And that it was fine if your stuff wasn't as good as NATO's, as long as you had enough of it, because you could push from Poland to Paris to Portgual, before the the feckless Western pussies could organize a response. That was the thinking anyways, and the NATO plan was to pause that Russian mass with nukes while they setup a Central European defensive line.

But the Ukraine war's addition of drones at scale and the revealed weakness of the Russian Horde Inevitability theory paired with truly terrible logistics limiting how fast the Russians can move forward, even without the dogged resistance. This ridiculous vanity war is not only Russia losing it's last shot at retaining the jewel of the Russian Empire, but it's also the defeat of their entire way of war. They're a 20th century army fighting a 21st century war with 11th century brutality.

What Does Russia Do? There doesn't seem to be a way for Russia to "win" the war on anything approaching their demanded terms. Even the Trump card has already been played - U.S. support was pulled, and it's made no real difference. The Ukraine of 2025+ can resist the Russian army without U.S. inputs. Ukraine's defiance of Russia and Trump has only increased since Agent Krasnov did everything he could initially. Now, he seems determined to force a global recession to try and indirectly erode the financial backing that enables Ukraine's remianing supporters.

What Does Ukraine Do? Keep fighting until there is a major change to the political leadership next door.

How & when does this end? Your thoughts plz. Cheers Amigos.

For serious discussion - like your thoughts beyond simple "Russians go home" platitudes. What even is a russian theory of victory at this point?

First off - this STILL seems to be a war where their only goal is conquest and capitulation of the Ukrainian government to a Russian puppet one. But - how do they intend realize that?

1. Terroristic bombings against civilian targets from standoff distance has never, ever been successful at defeating an industrial society. It's way, way way too expensive to maintain and doesn't hold ground.

2. Russia's mechanized forces in mass have largely been wiped out and is cost-ineffective compared to Ukraine's ability to stop them with drones.

3. Russia's infantry tactics is literally sending in small infiltration teams into forward areas, where they are eventually either droned, sniped, mined, shelled or outright counter attacked and killed.

Ukraine seems capable of increasingly automating their defense AND assualt forces to be less manpower intensive, and able to trade a little bit of land temporarily until they can kill the infiltration teams that bum rush positions in cars, motorbikes or on foot. The latter is NOT a serious or effective strategy for occupying and pacifying conquered land.

In the big picture - Russia seems to just be prolonging the slaughter and hoping to be given something in return to make it stop. But - that doesn't seem likely to work. No serious minded thinkers expect Russia to honor any agreement, so why WOULDN'T Ukraine logically look at the stiatuion and conclude that the ONLY way to stop future russian aggression is to bleed out their army until there is fundamental change in Russian political leadership.

How does Russia 'win' this war? It's hard to see. Things feel very endgame, but also stagnant since life of their soldiers means absolutely nothing to the Kremlin, when they probably know the alternative is that stopping the war leads quickly and directly to total domestic collapse.

Your thoughts please.