pmp10

So interestingly after (imo questionable) suggestions that Ukraine could win the war a number of voices have been raised urging them not to. Kissinger just joined that group after Macron, Draghi among others. They cannot possibly believe that Russia is willing to retreat from taken land, so what exactly are they playing at?

These given Russian losses are almost certainly general casualties, whereas Zelensky spoke of fatalities. If we assume the classic 3 wounded to 1 killed ratio in casualties, then Ukraine is suffering 1 to 1 KIAs while on the defensive. Not a good sign for any offensive actions.

Final azovstal defenders are to surrender soon. If Putin plans to pursue any off-ramps this would be the best occasion to declare victory.

Let's just say I don't think that 'out' is workable for him. There are limits to what can be spun to the Russian society. Complete withdrawal, admitting war guilt, financial reparations would all be clear signs of a major defeat that would end Putin's rule. That's about what Ukraine would settle for right now.

I'm not convinced that Russian economy is collapsing as advertised. For example ruble was supposed to have crashed hard by now. Instead new gas payment scheme will keep it strong for a long time to come. It doesn't help that all the predictions run very far into the future. The war may be over and sanctions lifted long before anyone has a chance to check their effectiveness.

Not at these stakes he doesn't. An 'out' of admitting defeat leads to him losing power and possibly the whole political system becoming unstable.

How? I don't think they have any stick to force Ukraine into conceding lost ground. I guess they could make some EU reconstruction package conditional, but that would meet political backlash.

Reportedly Italy and Germany will fulfill Putin's demand and pay for gas in rubles. The whole economic war on Russia is not showing great results so far.

There was even a claim by one analyst that Ukraine could have won the war if only it mobilized in December. But the reality is that despite military aid in the billions some of their soldiers are still serving near the front without rifles. I don't see how they could effectively arm mobilized force back then. As for provoking Russia - it's never that simple as mobilization carries a major responsibility for escalating conflicts in the eyes of international community. The narrative that Ukraine somehow forced Putin to invade is doing rounds even now. It would be so much better received if this could have been sold as a preemptive attack.

Presumably the dug-out. Might be the soldiers moved once it was already committed to a strike. Still not exactly a marvelous showing for something hyped to be a game-changer.

And on the technical side of new weaponry being introduced: First video of switchblade use has surfaced. Seems surprisingly... focused?

I'd say vast majority of their actions can be explained by following Russia's own logic, imperial policy or a result of evident screw-ups. Deliberate appeal to Italy's antisemitism seems to fit none of these.

But only in a private conversation. The Israel thing is so weird, it was clearly not an accident or meant for a domestic audience as Lavrov interview was for Italian TV station and they doubled-down afterwards. I see absolutely no purpose or advantage to it.

That's great but Russian offensive there was stopped over a month ago. I really don't think much value is put in Kharkiv at this point, except maybe as a opportunity for cheap terror strikes*. Whereas Russians were just recently making gains around Kherson, politically far more important target. * - Still ongoing strikes, Ukrainian gains have not been enough to push Russian artillery far enough from even the city center.

You likely mean the polish president. The line was that no territorial loss of Ukraine will be recognised. That position (and the UK one) is just diplomatic grandstanding. Everyone understands that Ukraine has little prospect of winning back land lost this war, to say nothing of Crimea or DNR/LPR.

So far some 10% of their GDP. I'd also argue that prestige of their armed forces will be diminished because of this war. And yes - I imagine they would think of both as a sacrifice.

Obviously it won't be taken, after all the sacrifices it would amount to a major defeat. Returning to 2021 borders, admitting guilt and paying reparations would likely be minimal imposed conditions. No way Putin (or his vision for Russia's future) could survive a humiliation like that.

Pretty sure that transfer is not happening if only due to escalation potential. Someone angry over Kharkov could demolish Kursk with that. Shorter range rocket launchers are already being provided to Ukraine anyway.

More and more rumors are flying that Putin will announce mobilization on 9th of May. Presumably among some political objectives like annexation of DPR / LPR and resolution of Kherson status.

Or more likely politicians just don't want to know. If no one (save maybe Hungary) was really breaking-out they could find ways to confirm that. I suspect that when all this is over with, we will find out that many countries secretly caved.

And another economic escalation: Renault auto-industry shares in Russia nationalized. Technically force-sold for one ruble, but that is what it pretty much amounts to.

It is, but it's not tomorrow yet. I wonder how they will handle the problem that the pipeline also serves Germany. Maybe they just plan to reduce flow by polish demand.

So officially the flow of Russian gas to Poland ends tomorrow. Also officially, it's over non-payment in rubles rather than anything Poland did regarding Ukraine. In that case other countries should follow soon.

The only bridge directly liking Odessa to Romania has just been bombed. This comes just after two radio towers in Transnistria were blown-up. We might be seeing a second (or is it third now?) front develop.

There are greater expectations on Germany to provide EU leadership. Especially so since they purposely landed themselves and no small part of Europe in this degree of gas dependence in the first place.