How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Patooka]

Yeah, but how do you make it Biden's fault?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear war is the ultimate crime against humanity. Due to current technology neither the US nor Russia have the time left to decide whether or not to do pre-emptive strike based on possible satelite incoming. That's even assuming (a big assumption on Biden's part) such a decision to destroy all of life (other than cockroaches and/or other bacteria) can be made in 30 seconds. In any case neither leader has the time to react at all.

We have the boomers. No matter how much damage the Russian missiles do the boomers will be untouched--the president could give an order like "Annihilate Russia 14 days from now unless this order is countermanded before then." Plenty of time to ride out the strike and see what happens.

Going the other way there's no chance of a strike, if there's any sanity in Moscow they're not going to launch no matter what they think they see because we simply have no reason to do a strike like that.

Update: I missed the part about missiles over Antarctica. That's a loony-bin idea. Nobody has missiles that could fly over Antarctica and hit the other side--range costs fuel and there simply is nothing to be gained by putting that much range on an ICBM. They would fire over the North Pole, same as we would.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia's RS-24 Yars Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), introduced in the mid 2000s, can strike anywhere in the US with what some report to be ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.

These ten warheads would reenter the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, around 5 miles a second. China has developed a similar platform, and the US simply has no way to defend against a salvo of such devastating nukes.

In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBM also reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s........
Lewis explained that the US really can't defend against Russia's most advanced, diabolical nuclear weapons as "the problem is just that the math never works."

A Russian nuclear ICBM would blast into orbit, turn around, break into individual reentry vehicles, and drive towards their individual targets at Mach 23. The US simply can't afford or design a system that would destroy ten nuclear warheads traveling at those mind-bending speed toward the the US.

Sensationalism.

Their birds are no better than ours. They typically have bigger booms on top but that's to make up for inferior guidance systems. (We used to put bigger booms on top, also.) Our birds come down just as fast as theirs. They have some interceptor missiles around Moscow but they're nuclear-tipped, from a practical standpoint that probably means they get only one shot as the first detonation will blind the rest of the battery. We would actually fare better as the SM-6 and the Patriot Pac-3 have a chance against an inbound.

The one big difference is whether the birds work. Something approaching half of their cruise missiles have failed when the trigger was pulled, I would be amazed if their nuclear stuff didn't fare far worse. Nuclear warheads require maintenance and it almost certainly hasn't been done properly, perhaps not at all. Not to mention that if they weren't diligent in silo maintenance the birds won't work at all. Dig a deep hole and you have to work at keeping it dry.

 

[Jayjay]

What "false narrative"?

The false narrative that "Russia is so weak and the US is so strong there is absolutely no danger of any kind of nuclear armageddon". We can horse around with Ukraine until the nukes start flying because Putin isn't going to hurt us way over here. Never mind they have had weapons that fly at mach 23 since mid 2000's.

And yes, that false narrative has everything to do with the OP.

Russia isn't going to do a first strike on America over Ukraine. That's a fact. There will be escalation phase first, where Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, and US/NATO responds conventionally.

Should we consider the possibility of nuclear war? Sure. Even if the probability is very small, the consequences are so devastating that it would be immoral not to consider it and have contingency plans. But at the same time, we can't give in to nuclear blackmail over every little thing Russia is pissed off about. What's your suggestion then? Give Putin what he wants? And next time, when he wants more, do the same thing?

The real thing that keeps nuclear war is off the table is to make sure Russia always has something more to lose. If Russia backs down, they will still be able to keep everything they had a year ago. They'll still be the largest country in the world by land area. They have military base in Kaliningrad, and have access to the Black Sea. They even have Belarus as their lapdog, occupied and almost certainly to be annexed later. If Putin wants to throw that all away and use nukes, he would be utterly insane.

 

[Rhea]

In comparison, the US's Minuteman III ICBM also reenters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but carries just one warhead, and was introduced in the 1970s........

I feel like you should read up on this, tho.

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site. (It’s pretty cool, I’ve been there…)

The Minuteman III was the first U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that could deliver Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) to a target. The missile can hold up to three warheads which can strike different targets miles away from each other.

Today there are still over 400 Minuteman III missiles on alert at Malmstrom, Minot, and F.E. Warren Air Force Bases.

 

[ZiprHead]

MSN

Russia is scrounging around for new ways to boost its military’s numbers in Ukraine without kicking off domestic backlash, according to a new British government intelligence assessment.

“The Russian leadership highly likely continues to search for ways to meet the high number of personnel required to resource any future major offensive in Ukraine, while minimizing domestic dissent,” the intelligence analysis, shared on Monday, said.


“Russian authorities are likely keeping open the option of another round of call-ups under the ‘partial mobilization,’” the assessment added.

U.S. officials have begun warning that Russia is likely preparing for a new offensive in the new year. Although Russia has maintained a manpower advantage over Ukraine in the war, the intelligence analysis reveals the balancing act the Kremlin is working on behind the scenes.

 

[Jayjay]

MSN

Russia is scrounging around for new ways to boost its military’s numbers in Ukraine without kicking off domestic backlash, according to a new British government intelligence assessment.

“The Russian leadership highly likely continues to search for ways to meet the high number of personnel required to resource any future major offensive in Ukraine, while minimizing domestic dissent,” the intelligence analysis, shared on Monday, said.


“Russian authorities are likely keeping open the option of another round of call-ups under the ‘partial mobilization,’” the assessment added.

U.S. officials have begun warning that Russia is likely preparing for a new offensive in the new year. Although Russia has maintained a manpower advantage over Ukraine in the war, the intelligence analysis reveals the balancing act the Kremlin is working on behind the scenes.

I think Putin will do exactly what the article suggests. A new round of mobilization, but under the old laws. No grandiose proclamations, just a gradual increase in the number of people getting handed their papers.

But I also believe that Putin has learned his lesson and will allow the newly mobilized to get more than two weeks of training. It means that the new round is aiming at early summer. This winter's offensive (which I think is imminent, they can't postpone much more or they'll get bogged down by muddy weather) will have to be executed with the troops they have now. Also ukraine is now at a weak point, having expanded many of their elite troops in Bakhmut and Soledar, and new western tanks and other weapons are still on their way.

 

[SLD]

MSN

Russia is scrounging around for new ways to boost its military’s numbers in Ukraine without kicking off domestic backlash, according to a new British government intelligence assessment.

“The Russian leadership highly likely continues to search for ways to meet the high number of personnel required to resource any future major offensive in Ukraine, while minimizing domestic dissent,” the intelligence analysis, shared on Monday, said.


“Russian authorities are likely keeping open the option of another round of call-ups under the ‘partial mobilization,’” the assessment added.

U.S. officials have begun warning that Russia is likely preparing for a new offensive in the new year. Although Russia has maintained a manpower advantage over Ukraine in the war, the intelligence analysis reveals the balancing act the Kremlin is working on behind the scenes.

I think Putin will do exactly what the article suggests. A new round of mobilization, but under the old laws. No grandiose proclamations, just a gradual increase in the number of people getting handed their papers.

But I also believe that Putin has learned his lesson and will allow the newly mobilized to get more than two weeks of training. It means that the new round is aiming at early summer. This winter's offensive (which I think is imminent, they can't postpone much more or they'll get bogged down by muddy weather) will have to be executed with the troops they have now. Also ukraine is now at a weak point, having expanded many of their elite troops in Bakhmut and Soledar, and new western tanks and other weapons are still on their way.

He can mobilize all he wants, but can he supply and equip them? And deploy them effectively? Not likely.

here’s another interesting article about support for the war in Russia. Obviously people say they do, since you can be prosecuted for not, but in the details you can see waning support as time goes on. The more the war drags on, the more people get sucked into it, the more deaths and other casualties, the less the people support it.

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

How Russians Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the War

The pliant majority sustaining Putin’s rule.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Copernicus]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion. Also, it is possible to use VPNs to get around censorship on Russian platforms. AFAIK, Russia has not blocked the use of all VPNs, and they would be useful for access to internet data that doesn't trace back to a Russian server.

 

[Jayjay]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion.

Also, this forum has about five active members and I suspect at least one of us is a cat walking on a keyboard. It's safe to say that we're solidly under Kremlin's radar.

 

[Politesse]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion.

Also, this forum has about five active members and I suspect at least one of us is a cat walking on a keyboard. It's safe to say that we're solidly under Kremlin's radar.

My cat does try to post on occasion, but she hasn't figured out how to press "post reply" with her little paws.

 

[Copernicus]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion.

Also, this forum has about five active members and I suspect at least one of us is a cat walking on a keyboard. It's safe to say that we're solidly under Kremlin's radar.

If they are mining web sites, this would only be one of a great many. I myself have used web crawlers to assemble databases of text to be used in text mining experiments. It's fast and automatic. Relevant texts on just about any subject can be pulled out and analyzed. The US, China, Russia, Iran, etc., devote plenty of resources to mining data from unstructured text. It is a multibillion dollar industry worldwide.

 

[SLD]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion.

Also, this forum has about five active members and I suspect at least one of us is a cat walking on a keyboard. It's safe to say that we're solidly under Kremlin's radar.

If they are mining web sites, this would only be one of a great many. I myself have used web crawlers to assemble databases of text to be used in text mining experiments. It's fast and automatic. Relevant texts on just about any subject can be pulled out and analyzed. The US, China, Russia, Iran, etc., devote plenty of resources to mining data from unstructured text. It is a multibillion dollar industry worldwide.

So the Kremlin is monitoring what we say? Cool! Hey, Pootie! Get the fuck out of Ukraine now! It’s about the only thing you can do to right your ship.

 

[Jayjay]

Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung alleges that USA tried to convince Ukraine and Russia to negotiate:

Joe Biden offered Vladimir Putin 20 percent of Ukraine to end war: Report

A peace proposal reportedly submitted on behalf of Biden in mid-January offered Russia territory the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

www.newsweek.com

The White House and the CIA have responded to a report that CIA Director, William Burns, offered Russian President Vladimir Putin a fifth of Ukraine's territory to end the ongoing war as part of a peace plan drawn up on behalf of President Joe Biden.

A CIA official told Newsweek that claims in the report from Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) that Burns took a secret trip to Moscow in January and that there was a peace proposal put forward by the director on behalf of the White House were "completely false."

Last month, Burns traveled in secret to meet and brief Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, The Washington Post reported.

Burns is said to have submitted the plan in mid-January to put an end to the war, which began on February 24, 2022. The story was reported by NZZ on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians.

Both Kyiv and Moscow reportedly rejected the proposal.

Newsweek reached out to the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Russia for comment.

According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—approximately the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The story could be complete rubbish of course. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true.

The "around 20 percent" probably means that Russia would have kept what it occupies, and not the rest of Donbas — no additional land concessions from either side. But what this tells about the motivations of different parties is more interesting.

A) Ukraine's rejection makes sense, and is hardly surprising. Currently overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are against any concessions, and Zelensky can't turn the country on a dime. Rewarding the murderous invaders with anything would be a grave injustice.

B) United States making such a proposal is sensible, and if the report is true, then I think Americans are doing the right thing: seeking peace in the background, but not forcing it on Ukraine. Personally I think the offer should have been February 2022 borders rather than status quo but Ukraine is not likely to be able to reconquer any land in the near future, with or without western aid, so it makes sense. Also the details that some elements of Biden's administration would rather be done with this war and focus on China isn't anything new. There have been such rumours before.

C) Russian rejection of the proposal indicates they're not as desperate as one might think from media reports. Clearly they think they can get more by means of war. Given the recent collapse of Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut, it's obvious that Putin is optimistic about Russia's prospects of taking back entire Donbas region, and maybe more.

Burns' public comments seem to reflect that Russia is not willing to negotiate at this time:

CIA Director William Burns: Next 6 months will be "critical" in Ukraine war

The CIA chief said that U.S. intelligence shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not serious about peace talks.

www.cbsnews.com

CIA Director William Burns said Thursday that the next six months would be "critical" in the war in Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin betting that waning Western interest and "political fatigue" could afford his military a new chance at making battlefield gains.

"Putin, I think, is betting right now that he can make time work for him," Burns said. "The key is going to be on the battlefield in the next six months, it seems to us."

"Puncturing Putin's hubris, making clear that he's not only not going to be able to advance further in Ukraine, but as every month goes by, he runs a greater and greater risk of losing the territory that he's illegally seized from Ukraine so far," he continued. "So this next period, I think, is going to be absolutely crucial."

The career diplomat and former ambassador to Russia said Western intelligence showed Moscow was not interested in peace talks, despite occasional reports to the contrary.

"We do not assess that Putin is serious about negotiations, for all that you hear sometimes about that," Burns said.

 

[Copernicus]

it’s also interesting to note that Putin has blocked some 220,000 websites. But if Barbos is posting here, maybe they haven’t blocked IIDB.

This is a liberal discussion board, so it could be a testbed for seeing how western liberals respond to certain types of propaganda memes. Mining social media is part of the process of manipulating public opinion.

Also, this forum has about five active members and I suspect at least one of us is a cat walking on a keyboard. It's safe to say that we're solidly under Kremlin's radar.

If they are mining web sites, this would only be one of a great many. I myself have used web crawlers to assemble databases of text to be used in text mining experiments. It's fast and automatic. Relevant texts on just about any subject can be pulled out and analyzed. The US, China, Russia, Iran, etc., devote plenty of resources to mining data from unstructured text. It is a multibillion dollar industry worldwide.

So the Kremlin is monitoring what we say? Cool! Hey, Pootie! Get the fuck out of Ukraine now! It’s about the only thing you can do to right your ship.

I don't think that those who run the troll farms care that you are angry at them for invading Ukraine. What might be more interesting is how people react to the story that Jayjay just posted above, because they would be looking for stories and memes that cause division and confusion in the enemy. A primary goal of the propaganda campaign is to weaken the Western coalition by playing different factions against each other. Getting Ukrainians and Americans angry at each other would be extremely helpful to their war effort, if they could maximize that division in public opinion. Simply adding up the number of posts devoted to a specific issue could be useful when compared to the number made regarding other issues that might cause division. It's all just data for analysts to look at. It makes for nice pie charts and bar graphs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung alleges that USA tried to convince Ukraine and Russia to negotiate:

Joe Biden offered Vladimir Putin 20 percent of Ukraine to end war: Report

A peace proposal reportedly submitted on behalf of Biden in mid-January offered Russia territory the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

www.newsweek.com

The White House and the CIA have responded to a report that CIA Director, William Burns, offered Russian President Vladimir Putin a fifth of Ukraine's territory to end the ongoing war as part of a peace plan drawn up on behalf of President Joe Biden.

A CIA official told Newsweek that claims in the report from Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) that Burns took a secret trip to Moscow in January and that there was a peace proposal put forward by the director on behalf of the White House were "completely false."

Last month, Burns traveled in secret to meet and brief Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, The Washington Post reported.

Burns is said to have submitted the plan in mid-January to put an end to the war, which began on February 24, 2022. The story was reported by NZZ on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians.

Both Kyiv and Moscow reportedly rejected the proposal.

Newsweek reached out to the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Russia for comment.

According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—approximately the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The story could be complete rubbish of course. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true.

The "around 20 percent" probably means that Russia would have kept what it occupies, and not the rest of Donbas — no additional land concessions from either side. But what this tells about the motivations of different parties is more interesting.

A) Ukraine's rejection makes sense, and is hardly surprising. Currently overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are against any concessions, and Zelensky can't turn the country on a dime. Rewarding the murderous invaders with anything would be a grave injustice.

B) United States making such a proposal is sensible, and if the report is true, then I think Americans are doing the right thing: seeking peace in the background, but not forcing it on Ukraine. Personally I think the offer should have been February 2022 borders rather than status quo but Ukraine is not likely to be able to reconquer any land in the near future, with or without western aid, so it makes sense. Also the details that some elements of Biden's administration would rather be done with this war and focus on China isn't anything new. There have been such rumours before.

C) Russian rejection of the proposal indicates they're not as desperate as one might think from media reports. Clearly they think they can get more by means of war. Given the recent collapse of Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut, it's obvious that Putin is optimistic about Russia's prospects of taking back entire Donbas region, and maybe more.

Burns' public comments seem to reflect that Russia is not willing to negotiate at this time:

CIA Director William Burns: Next 6 months will be "critical" in Ukraine war

The CIA chief said that U.S. intelligence shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not serious about peace talks.

www.cbsnews.com

CIA Director William Burns said Thursday that the next six months would be "critical" in the war in Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin betting that waning Western interest and "political fatigue" could afford his military a new chance at making battlefield gains.

"Putin, I think, is betting right now that he can make time work for him," Burns said. "The key is going to be on the battlefield in the next six months, it seems to us."

"Puncturing Putin's hubris, making clear that he's not only not going to be able to advance further in Ukraine, but as every month goes by, he runs a greater and greater risk of losing the territory that he's illegally seized from Ukraine so far," he continued. "So this next period, I think, is going to be absolutely crucial."

The career diplomat and former ambassador to Russia said Western intelligence showed Moscow was not interested in peace talks, despite occasional reports to the contrary.

"We do not assess that Putin is serious about negotiations, for all that you hear sometimes about that," Burns said.

Yes. Putler only claims to want negotiations in order to fool naive westerners and sow discord. Sure Putler wants peace: as long as all of Ukraine is under the Russian boot and in gulags. Then will come the Baltics, Moltova, Poland, and etc.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung alleges that USA tried to convince Ukraine and Russia to negotiate:

Joe Biden offered Vladimir Putin 20 percent of Ukraine to end war: Report

A peace proposal reportedly submitted on behalf of Biden in mid-January offered Russia territory the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

www.newsweek.com

The White House and the CIA have responded to a report that CIA Director, William Burns, offered Russian President Vladimir Putin a fifth of Ukraine's territory to end the ongoing war as part of a peace plan drawn up on behalf of President Joe Biden.

A CIA official told Newsweek that claims in the report from Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) that Burns took a secret trip to Moscow in January and that there was a peace proposal put forward by the director on behalf of the White House were "completely false."

Last month, Burns traveled in secret to meet and brief Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, The Washington Post reported.

Burns is said to have submitted the plan in mid-January to put an end to the war, which began on February 24, 2022. The story was reported by NZZ on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians.

Both Kyiv and Moscow reportedly rejected the proposal.

Newsweek reached out to the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Russia for comment.

According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—approximately the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The story could be complete rubbish of course. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true.

The "around 20 percent" probably means that Russia would have kept what it occupies, and not the rest of Donbas — no additional land concessions from either side. But what this tells about the motivations of different parties is more interesting.

A) Ukraine's rejection makes sense, and is hardly surprising. Currently overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are against any concessions, and Zelensky can't turn the country on a dime. Rewarding the murderous invaders with anything would be a grave injustice.

B) United States making such a proposal is sensible, and if the report is true, then I think Americans are doing the right thing: seeking peace in the background, but not forcing it on Ukraine. Personally I think the offer should have been February 2022 borders rather than status quo but Ukraine is not likely to be able to reconquer any land in the near future, with or without western aid, so it makes sense. Also the details that some elements of Biden's administration would rather be done with this war and focus on China isn't anything new. There have been such rumours before.

C) Russian rejection of the proposal indicates they're not as desperate as one might think from media reports. Clearly they think they can get more by means of war. Given the recent collapse of Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut, it's obvious that Putin is optimistic about Russia's prospects of taking back entire Donbas region, and maybe more.

This story holds water only if the United States/Europe is concerned with the loss of life in Ukraine. And frankly that is for Zelensky to decide. The US is not war-weary. NATO is not war-weary. So many nations are stepping up. Even Switzerland is talking about transferring Leopards to another nation to give to the cause.
Or perhaps if the CIA knows something we don't and is concerned about Putin being deposed sooner rather than later and what may follow.

What the US/NATO does have is a real platform to get accurate assessments of weapons and tactics for future wartime scenarios. War games will only teach so much. It also forces the US to take a look at how fast it can ramp up wartime production if need be. I'm sure the question is being asked, "What if China attacked tomorrow?"

To think the US would consider a near future in which twenty percent of Ukraine goes to Russia and that new border is protected by whom? What level of naïveté would the US have to possess to consider any such agreement with Putin? At present it could only be NATO troops on Russia's border.
The only way for Ukraine to secure its own border with Russia and limit any threat is for Russia to be crushed militarily and economically to the point Ukraine can rebuild and defend itself long before Russia has the ability to again become belligerent.

 

[Patooka]

It seems a bit farfetched the US would negotiate with Russia without Ukraine being involved. I definitely would like to see receipts before I took that claim seriously.

 

[Jayjay]

Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung alleges that USA tried to convince Ukraine and Russia to negotiate:

Joe Biden offered Vladimir Putin 20 percent of Ukraine to end war: Report

A peace proposal reportedly submitted on behalf of Biden in mid-January offered Russia territory the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

www.newsweek.com

The White House and the CIA have responded to a report that CIA Director, William Burns, offered Russian President Vladimir Putin a fifth of Ukraine's territory to end the ongoing war as part of a peace plan drawn up on behalf of President Joe Biden.

A CIA official told Newsweek that claims in the report from Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) that Burns took a secret trip to Moscow in January and that there was a peace proposal put forward by the director on behalf of the White House were "completely false."

Last month, Burns traveled in secret to meet and brief Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, The Washington Post reported.

Burns is said to have submitted the plan in mid-January to put an end to the war, which began on February 24, 2022. The story was reported by NZZ on Thursday, citing high-ranking German foreign politicians.

Both Kyiv and Moscow reportedly rejected the proposal.

Newsweek reached out to the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Russia for comment.

According to the newspaper, the proposal offered "around 20 percent of Ukraine's territory"—approximately the size of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.

The story could be complete rubbish of course. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true.

The "around 20 percent" probably means that Russia would have kept what it occupies, and not the rest of Donbas — no additional land concessions from either side. But what this tells about the motivations of different parties is more interesting.

A) Ukraine's rejection makes sense, and is hardly surprising. Currently overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are against any concessions, and Zelensky can't turn the country on a dime. Rewarding the murderous invaders with anything would be a grave injustice.

B) United States making such a proposal is sensible, and if the report is true, then I think Americans are doing the right thing: seeking peace in the background, but not forcing it on Ukraine. Personally I think the offer should have been February 2022 borders rather than status quo but Ukraine is not likely to be able to reconquer any land in the near future, with or without western aid, so it makes sense. Also the details that some elements of Biden's administration would rather be done with this war and focus on China isn't anything new. There have been such rumours before.

C) Russian rejection of the proposal indicates they're not as desperate as one might think from media reports. Clearly they think they can get more by means of war. Given the recent collapse of Ukrainian defenses around Bakhmut, it's obvious that Putin is optimistic about Russia's prospects of taking back entire Donbas region, and maybe more.

This story holds water only if the United States/Europe is concerned with the loss of life in Ukraine. And frankly that is for Zelensky to decide. The US is not war-weary. NATO is not war-weary. So many nations are stepping up. Even Switzerland is talking about transferring Leopards to another nation to give to the cause.
Or perhaps if the CIA knows something we don't and is concerned about Putin being deposed sooner rather than later and what may follow.

I think CIA and DoD are more interested in China. I guess a lot of the people in the US intelligence community may have been molded by old cold war ideas of geopolitics and spheres of influence.

The issue of war-weariness is a long-term one. Only way I see Russia being defeated (in the sense of driven back to their own borders) is a dragged out war where the west can maintain the supply of weapons, ammunition, and training for years. Ok, tanks for 2023, great. But what about 2024? 2025? 2026? At some point, we will get weary of the war. Elections in US and Europe will happen, and populists will start asking whether throwing money at Ukraine is worth it when there are no obvious results and it seems hopeless.

Russia on the other hand doesn't have to give a fuck about elections, and public opinion in Russia can be molded to fit the war narrative. Children are being given propaganda lectures and even militaristic training. They can go on until they literally run out of warm bodies or weapons, which will take a long time.

What the US/NATO does have is a real platform to get accurate assessments of weapons and tactics for future wartime scenarios. War games will only teach so much. It also forces the US to take a look at how fast it can ramp up wartime production if need be. I'm sure the question is being asked, "What if China attacked tomorrow?"

That's a bonus. But not the primary reason to send weapons. And on the other scale there is the idea that it's better to not let your enemy know what you're capable of either.

To think the US would consider a near future in which twenty percent of Ukraine goes to Russia and that new border is protected by whom? What level of naïveté would the US have to possess to consider any such agreement with Putin? At present it could only be NATO troops on Russia's border.
The only way for Ukraine to secure its own border with Russia and limit any threat is for Russia to be crushed militarily and economically to the point Ukraine can rebuild and defend itself long before Russia has the ability to again become belligerent.

The issue is feasibility. If Ukraine can't reclaim its land anyway, the 20% it has lost now could be written off. Not easy for Ukraine to swallow defeat for sure, and it would be immoral to impose it from outside, which is why I think it'll take at least a year before any such ceasefire becomes feasible. And a lot could happen before 2024.

It seems a bit farfetched the US would negotiate with Russia without Ukraine being involved. I definitely would like to see receipts before I took that claim seriously.

I wouldn't call it negotiation, if it happened. Normal diplomatic relations and probing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The nuclear threat is purely Russian propaganda, intended to discourage the US and NATO from increased support of Ukraine.

This talk of hypersonic weapons (Ooooh, scary!) is over-egging the propaganda pudding. Putin wants to scare the west into not opposing him, and he's using the hollow threat of nuclear war to achieve that objective.

The real thing that keeps nuclear war is off the table is to make sure Russia always has something more to lose. If Russia backs down, they will still be able to keep everything they had a year ago. They'll still be the largest country in the world by land area. They have military base in Kaliningrad, and have access to the Black Sea. They even have Belarus as their lapdog, occupied and almost certainly to be annexed later. If Putin wants to throw that all away and use nukes, he would be utterly insane.

The only way for Ukraine to secure its own border with Russia and limit any threat is for Russia to be crushed militarily and economically to the point Ukraine can rebuild and defend itself long before Russia has the ability to again become belligerent.

I guess the real question is whether U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine is to defend Ukraine proper or to defend democracy and western freedom against Russian imperialism. Ukraine is just the cold war getting hot. Are we so tired of defending our freedoms, have we become so complacent? If so we should end the charade and let Ukraine be subsumed.