Europe at War

[amw]

Kherson: Russia to withdraw troops from key Ukrainian city

If true, the war's almost certainly over, at least for this year. I'd expect fighting to resume in the spring (or perhaps even earlier) but for the moment that's good news for everyone.

I note that Russian activists (online, at least) are talking about replacing Putin with a "real nationalist", someone even more far-right than him, but since they can't agree on a single name it does not seem likely to happen. The more predominant sentiment is summed up by this post. It looks as though Putin did indeed successfully find an offramp from the war that would allow him to hang on politically, even if it's a temporary one.

Reportedly, Ukrainian officials don't yet believe the withdrawal was real and are waiting for more information before attempting to enter the city. The whole thing has been rather surreal, what with Russia announcing this withdrawal like it's a victory and Ukraine refusing to believe in it like it's a defeat. There's widespread speculation that the US has offered some kind of peace deal where Russia withdraws from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia but keeps Donbas and Crimea—which would account for those sentiments, as that's ultimately a Ukrainian defeat/Russian victory—but of course we will not know anything for several months and/or whenever a major European or American politician is up for re-election and needs the propaganda coup of "negotiating peace in Ukraine".

[Que]

I don't buy the US-Russia deal at all....

Having heard and read several comments in the media, I do think it is likely that Putin was indeed planning to lure Ukrainian troops into urban warfare in Kherson city. But it turned out the the Ukrainians weren't taking the bait. And their tactics of cutting off Russian supply lines worked so well that it would be Putin's best troops that would be trapped and destroyed instead. Since he needs them for his obsesion to conquer the Donbass region, in the end it was just an ordinary withdrawal to save his troops.

The Ukrainians will thank him,  because now they have a secure southern flank and they can redeploy their troops for a mid-winter offensive in the Zaporizhzhia region. Or wait for their chance to move further south when left poorly defended by Putin... Defensive trenches are already dug in northern Crimea...

[Que]

This doesn't sound like an orderly retreat:

Russian soldiers have been abandoning wounded comrades as they make a retreat from the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson, the Daily Telegraph reports.

Nikolai, a Ukrainian soldier fighting in the region, told the newspaper:
"There is a withdrawal of Russian troops to more fortified positions. But there were still populated points where we saw battles. They withdraw because they suffer losses, very heavy losses. What's more, they don't even take the bodies of their soldiers and leave the wounded behind."

[amw]

I don't buy the US-Russia deal at all....

I think if negotiations are happening, which is a big if, they are essentially political cover allowing both sides to rearm (and avoid having to strain their supply lines through the winter) before fighting resumes. It seems very unlikely that anyone involved is ready to negotiate in good faith.

With that said, I would still say the war is unwinnable on the battlefield. The Russian military has proven weaker than expected, but even if it loses every battle from now on, political trends in Russia at the moment will prolong this as a frozen or semi-frozen conflict indefinitely, much like in Syria. I would be cautious about forecasting either side losing the will to fight, or believing any war reports one reads about casualties and so on.

The war will continue until it doesn't. At the moment, it appears to be on hold. (There is the chance of a new Ukrainian offensive in the area of Svatove—Kreminna, but this will be difficult for them due to terrain and winter weather; snow expected within the week.) At least for Ukrainian civilians that's a good thing. We'll see if it lasts.

[Que]

I think if negotiations are happening, which is a big if, they are essentially political cover allowing both sides to rearm (and avoid having to strain their supply lines through the winter) before fighting resumes. It seems very unlikely that anyone involved is ready to negotiate in good faith.

Agreed. Neither side is willing to negotiate: Russia is not ready to admit defeat, and Ukraine is not willing to hand over large chuncks of its territory.

With that said, I would still say the war is unwinnable on the battlefield. The Russian military has proven weaker than expected, but even if it loses every battle from now on, political trends in Russia at the moment will prolong this as a frozen or semi-frozen conflict indefinitely, much like in Syria.

Agreed. When we get to the point where both parties do not see any viable options to recoved their losses, there will be a ceasefire. But no real peace negotiations until a regime change in Russia takes place.

[Todd]

I think if negotiations are happening, which is a big if, they are essentially political cover allowing both sides to rearm (and avoid having to strain their supply lines through the winter) before fighting resumes.

No way.

I would be cautious about forecasting either side losing the will to fight, or believing any war reports one reads about casualties and so on.

No way.

It is worth repeating that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin publicly stated that the US is pursuing a policy of weakening Russia in Ukraine.  US leadership wants this war to continue.  Ukraine makes a great killing field.

[drogulus]

     I will speculate because who says I can't?

     Here's the deal Putin will settle on when he gets to it.

     Land for hostages is it. The land is Crimea and the Donbass. The hostages may number as many as a million.

     Ukraine doesn't have to ask anyone in order to say no. Here's why. Russia doesn't actually want a million extra mouths to feed and it will never ever reengage with the world as long as it holds them. I mean, one basketball player doesn't nearly signify. All the Ukes have to do is keep on keeping on until Russia decides to stop dying of total death and more comfortably die slowly.

     

[amw]

But no real peace negotiations until a regime change in Russia takes place.

The only thing I will disagree with is this. Putin is the only person in contention for Russian leadership who will ever be willing to negotiate with Ukraine. There is not, and will not be for perhaps several decades, a more liberal or moderate figure who could replace him; there are many more extreme figures. Regime change in Russia means a forever war. This is part of why the USA wants regime change in Russia; it wants the war to continue indefinitely.

I think what you're hoping for is some kind of situation where the CIA instigates colour revolutions throughout the various constituent republics of Russia and balkanises the country. I'm sure that's on their agenda somewhere but their track record of foreign intervention hasn't been great lately. We should expect Russia to continue existing in its current form and political makeup for some time.

[Florestan]

The only thing I will disagree with is this. Putin is the only person in contention for Russian leadership who will ever be willing to negotiate with Ukraine. There is not, and will not be for perhaps several decades, a more liberal or moderate figure who could replace him; there are many more extreme figures.

Much as it pains me, I have to agree. (I mean, it doesn't pain me to agree with you --- it pains me to agree about Putin.)

[drogulus]

     I think the US wants the war to end, and preferably sooner than later. That's may be in conflict with the goal of supporting Ukraine at some future crossroads. It isn't yet.

     The US doesn't want a total Russian collapse where its dismembered by enemies external and internal to its borders. There's also the economy to consider for the US and the countries it trades with.

     The US also faces the consequences of Chinese unraveling, which could result in mass starvation and/or the possibility of a "use it or lose it" attack on Taiwan. The Russia case has to be settled fairly soon, I would say no later than the summer of 2023.

[Todd]

Regime change is a failed policy.

[Florestan]

once Putin is removed.

How and by whom could Putin be removed?

[Todd]

But unless he is, Russia's future is bleak.

Maybe, maybe not.  It is not for The West to determine who leads Russia.

[drogulus]

     Regime change is a Russian tradition. So is failure.

[Todd]

Not so sure about that. The Russians do not exactly have a glorious history of deciding who their leaders should be.
If they cannot, maybe others will.

Regime change is a failed policy.

[Todd]

It doesn't make the sentiment more or less true.

This is true.  Likewise, posting false analogies about WWII and its wake remains irrelevant in all cases.

[amw]

On the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, but with a deep appreciation of history, I think you might be wrong. There was not, and did not appear to be plausible for several decades in 1945, a liberal democrat in the mere vicinity of Germany. They made do, and it worked out OK in the end.

This case does not make the point you think it does. We can't speak about Germany as a "true" liberal democracy until after reunification, i.e., five decades later after the country had already been balkanised and occupied. The trend towards liberalisation in these intervening decades was externally imposed by the occupying powers and Germany's subsequent economic dependence on them. It is instructive to note how many supposedly-reformed Nazis held onto power until the 1970s or 1980s.

I don't see many prospects for a joint US-EU-China occupation, partition and Marshall Plan for Russia.

[Todd]

This case does not make the point you think it does. We can't speak about Germany as a "true" liberal democracy until after reunification, i.e., five decades later after the country had already been balkanised and occupied. The trend towards liberalisation in these intervening decades was externally imposed by the occupying powers and Germany's subsequent economic dependence on them. It is instructive to note how many supposedly-reformed Nazis held onto power until the 1970s or 1980s.

I don't see many prospects for a joint US-EU-China occupation, partition and Marshall Plan for Russia.

Arguments that rely on or refer to WWII are not really arguments at all.  They are all false analogies, for multiple reasons. 

Perhaps the people on this forum who support regime change can provide a successful example of regime change from the post-war period.  That's just shy of eighty years.  Surely one must have been a great success.  Then if they could explain how said successful example could translate to success in Russia, that would be fantastic.  Or perhaps supporters of regime change are convinced that all the kinks are worked out of the process by now and it will work very well indeed with Russia.  If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, and all that. 

[drogulus]

I don't see many prospects for a joint US-EU-China occupation, partition and Marshall Plan for Russia.

     I don't get why this is so hard to understand. The US wants to avoid Russian disintegration, and is entirely aware that Russia will change for the worse in the majority of the scenarios that are most likely. Russian history is one disaster after another, and disasters change their regimes. The US is trying to prevent Russian and Chinese disasters from spilling over into other countries.

     The 101st Airborne is in Poland. Russia is interested in talks. Kherson is liberated. None of this says Russia will change regimes or that they won't.

[Madiel]

How and by whom could Putin be removed?

Old age eventually if nothing else...

Mind you, given that Trump seems to be going strong on an abominably bad diet, I don't hold much expectation of Putin being unhealthy any time soon. I know there was some speculation about him being ill but I tend to think that was nothing more than wishful thinking.