[BostonCard]

The story of how Ukrainians blew up Nordstream.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-st...yURL_share

BC

[BostonCard]

The story of how Ukrainians blew up Nordstream.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-st...yURL_share

BC

[Goose]

Apparently Ukraine is setting up an administrative center in occupied Kursk...not sure what to make of that.  Ploy?  

Reports from the Ukrainian Donbas front indicate that they've been receiving fewer resources (due to resources going to Kursk) and consequently not doing as well against the Russian advance.  Zero-sum game :(

Here's a *very* optimistic, high-level analysis.  It mentions that Ukraine is cutting off one of the major rail lines supplying the eastern front Russian advance and potentially interdicting another.
I don't think we'll see Russian military units marching on Moscow, however lol.
https://realcontextnews.com/kursk-belgor...ts-sleeve/

Indeed Ukraine has cut the two rail lines that are on the map. One of the very first things I did when the reports of the offensive came in was look at the logistics situation for both Russia and Ukraine. Bottom line, the railroads Ukraine has cut go nowhere except the local area. That doesn't mean they are totally unimportant but they are very much secondary branch lines. As others have pointed out, the area involved is mostly forested with few roads. It is a logistics nightmare for both sides. Undoubtedly that contributed to the Russian expectation that Ukraine would not stage a major operation in this area. However, the railroads in question matter little in terms of "through traffic". There isn't any, to the Kharkiv front or anywhere else. What is of interest regarding Russian rail is that many lines from Belarus are closed to freight because the Russian army is using them at capacity to bring troops and supplies into the Kursk  battle area. Apparently traffic is seriously impacted.  https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/...?gdpr=deny Another view of this, perhaps a bit more biased:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...ed_by_the/ This later link shows a complete map that illustrates that the area Ukraine occupies is basically "the end of the line". There is a rail link from Ukraine, but I suspect that line as been out of service for years :-).

[Goose]

Apparently Ukraine is setting up an administrative center in occupied Kursk...not sure what to make of that.  Ploy?  

Reports from the Ukrainian Donbas front indicate that they've been receiving fewer resources (due to resources going to Kursk) and consequently not doing as well against the Russian advance.  Zero-sum game :(

Here's a *very* optimistic, high-level analysis.  It mentions that Ukraine is cutting off one of the major rail lines supplying the eastern front Russian advance and potentially interdicting another.
I don't think we'll see Russian military units marching on Moscow, however lol.
https://realcontextnews.com/kursk-belgor...ts-sleeve/

Indeed Ukraine has cut the two rail lines that are on the map. One of the very first things I did when the reports of the offensive came in was look at the logistics situation for both Russia and Ukraine. Bottom line, the railroads Ukraine has cut go nowhere except the local area. That doesn't mean they are totally unimportant but they are very much secondary branch lines. As others have pointed out, the area involved is mostly forested with few roads. It is a logistics nightmare for both sides. Undoubtedly that contributed to the Russian expectation that Ukraine would not stage a major operation in this area. However, the railroads in question matter little in terms of "through traffic". There isn't any, to the Kharkiv front or anywhere else. What is of interest regarding Russian rail is that many lines from Belarus are closed to freight because the Russian army is using them at capacity to bring troops and supplies into the Kursk  battle area. Apparently traffic is seriously impacted.  https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/...?gdpr=deny Another view of this, perhaps a bit more biased:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...ed_by_the/ This later link shows a complete map that illustrates that the area Ukraine occupies is basically "the end of the line". There is a rail link from Ukraine, but I suspect that line as been out of service for years :-).

[M T]

Hmmm.... The BBC indicates it is the UK that is not allowing the Storm Shadows to be used to target Russian territory.  Now, maybe the US & UK discuss this, and some suspected US opinion may have a large impact on the decision, but it seems to be the UK is the one expressing the restriction.

[M T]

Hmmm.... The BBC indicates it is the UK that is not allowing the Storm Shadows to be used to target Russian territory.  Now, maybe the US & UK discuss this, and some suspected US opinion may have a large impact on the decision, but it seems to be the UK is the one expressing the restriction.

[dabigv13]

I don't know that there is anything in the open that is definitive on this issue but the perception amongst informed observers is the US is making the actual decision on this. The US has always been more vocal about escalation management in ways the UK has never been. The UK allowed use of their weapons (apart from Storm Shadow) on Russian territory before the US did (apart from ATACMS).

https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1823795048141701423

[dabigv13]

I don't know that there is anything in the open that is definitive on this issue but the perception amongst informed observers is the US is making the actual decision on this. The US has always been more vocal about escalation management in ways the UK has never been. The UK allowed use of their weapons (apart from Storm Shadow) on Russian territory before the US did (apart from ATACMS).

https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1823795048141701423

[Goose]

I don't know that there is anything in the open that is definitive on this issue but the perception amongst informed observers is the US is making the actual decision on this. The US has always been more vocal about escalation management in ways the UK has never been. The UK allowed use of their weapons (apart from Storm Shadow) on Russian territory before the US did (apart from ATACMS).

https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1823795048141701423

I believe that the Storm Shadows use components exported from the US. These components have "End User" certificates attached. If that is indeed the case, both France and the UK would have required US permission to export these "Significant Military Equipment" (SME) to Ukraine. Obviously, that permission was given, but it may not be unconditional. The US can quietly respond "yes" to a UK transfer request without publicizing it. The UK can also place restrictions on the items transferred, possibly (but not necessarily) citing restrictions imposed by the US. I am sure that all parties involved do not want to get crosswise with their partners. If the US is unwilling, it may be a showstopper.

[Goose]

I don't know that there is anything in the open that is definitive on this issue but the perception amongst informed observers is the US is making the actual decision on this. The US has always been more vocal about escalation management in ways the UK has never been. The UK allowed use of their weapons (apart from Storm Shadow) on Russian territory before the US did (apart from ATACMS).

https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1823795048141701423

I believe that the Storm Shadows use components exported from the US. These components have "End User" certificates attached. If that is indeed the case, both France and the UK would have required US permission to export these "Significant Military Equipment" (SME) to Ukraine. Obviously, that permission was given, but it may not be unconditional. The US can quietly respond "yes" to a UK transfer request without publicizing it. The UK can also place restrictions on the items transferred, possibly (but not necessarily) citing restrictions imposed by the US. I am sure that all parties involved do not want to get crosswise with their partners. If the US is unwilling, it may be a showstopper.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-paying...59448.html

Yes indeed, it is in their DNA. IMO it is critical that the US allow Ukraine to use everything and anything to damage Russian troops AND to damage Russian fortifications. Once a bunch of heavy equipment operators get killed digging trenches finding replacements will get real hard :-). Ukraine let Russia fortify extensively in the south without any attempts to disrupt these actions. If Russia has to pay a high price for such actions, the result will be fewer and weaker defensive positions. This saves lots of Ukrainian lives if/when Ukraine decides to breach these "new" fortifications.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-paying...59448.html

Yes indeed, it is in their DNA. IMO it is critical that the US allow Ukraine to use everything and anything to damage Russian troops AND to damage Russian fortifications. Once a bunch of heavy equipment operators get killed digging trenches finding replacements will get real hard :-). Ukraine let Russia fortify extensively in the south without any attempts to disrupt these actions. If Russia has to pay a high price for such actions, the result will be fewer and weaker defensive positions. This saves lots of Ukrainian lives if/when Ukraine decides to breach these "new" fortifications.

[GK3]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

If they actually reach Glushkovo or Veseloe that would indeed add a big chunk to their controlled territory.  Last I saw they were still outside Korenevo and Snagost.  I hope it is true.

[GK3]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

If they actually reach Glushkovo or Veseloe that would indeed add a big chunk to their controlled territory.  Last I saw they were still outside Korenevo and Snagost.  I hope it is true.

[TrumpCard]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

[TrumpCard]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-paying...59448.html

Yes indeed, it is in their DNA. IMO it is critical that the US allow Ukraine to use everything and anything to damage Russian troops AND to damage Russian fortifications. Once a bunch of heavy equipment operators get killed digging trenches finding replacements will get real hard :-). Ukraine let Russia fortify extensively in the south without any attempts to disrupt these actions. If Russia has to pay a high price for such actions, the result will be fewer and weaker defensive positions. This saves lots of Ukrainian lives if/when Ukraine decides to breach these "new" fortifications.

If you are digging them by hand, that is seriously hard work.  With my Stanford degree  I dug ditches by hand in So Cal housing developments while I waited for my reporting date for Fort Benning to finally get there.  It certainly helped get me into a bit better shape.  Unfortunately, they didn't pay me $4000 a month either.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-paying...59448.html

Yes indeed, it is in their DNA. IMO it is critical that the US allow Ukraine to use everything and anything to damage Russian troops AND to damage Russian fortifications. Once a bunch of heavy equipment operators get killed digging trenches finding replacements will get real hard :-). Ukraine let Russia fortify extensively in the south without any attempts to disrupt these actions. If Russia has to pay a high price for such actions, the result will be fewer and weaker defensive positions. This saves lots of Ukrainian lives if/when Ukraine decides to breach these "new" fortifications.

If you are digging them by hand, that is seriously hard work.  With my Stanford degree  I dug ditches by hand in So Cal housing developments while I waited for my reporting date for Fort Benning to finally get there.  It certainly helped get me into a bit better shape.  Unfortunately, they didn't pay me $4000 a month either.

[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

[Goose]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1824507311446167944

Cool footage of the bridge coming down. Seems like GMLRS punched some holes, but a JDAM brought it down.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1824507311446167944

Cool footage of the bridge coming down. Seems like GMLRS punched some holes, but a JDAM brought it down.

[GK3]

A question for the lawyers.  Russia has now pulled the licenses issued to western companies for the repair and maintenance of russian military equipment.  Under current circumstances is such an action enforceable in any manner.  They are apparently trying to stop NATO countries in particular from helping Ukraine repair and maintaiin their old Russian equipment.

[GK3]

A question for the lawyers.  Russia has now pulled the licenses issued to western companies for the repair and maintenance of russian military equipment.  Under current circumstances is such an action enforceable in any manner.  They are apparently trying to stop NATO countries in particular from helping Ukraine repair and maintaiin their old Russian equipment.

[TrumpCard]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).  

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?  

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

[TrumpCard]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).  

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?  

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

[Goose]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).

The Donbas was not anything like an "industrial powerhouse" before the war. It was a heavily depressed "rust belt" with no real prospects of an alternative future. From the article:

Under Soviet rule, especially under Stalin, the region became a center for metallurgy and mining through an enormous level of harsh Soviet planning. Heavily mined, polluted, and now filled with spent ammunition, the region cannot return to that past.

That "harsh level of Soviet planning" created a metals industry that was heavily embedded in the Soviet Union. Its factories were never efficient and competitive even when new. By the late 1980 they were terminally obsolete and continued to function at all only because the state controlled where things were built and at what price. In addition, over 50% of the Soviet economy involved various product transfers from one State-owned enterprise to another. Paraphrasing an administrator in a Donbas coal company just after Ukraine became independent: "Before, I sent a requisition to Moscow for shoring timber. I didn't know what it cost. It would just show up when I ordered it. It may not be quite what I ordered, but we could make do. Now I have to buy it. It is enormously expensive and I have to find a company that will supply it to me. Most of these companies are in Russia and are very hard to deal with. Right now we are shut down because we have no shoring material. I have no idea when we will re-open."

In short, the Donbas was already Pittsburgh except many years delayed.  Their "natural" partner was Russia which was now a "foreign country" that had equally large economic problems. Donbas economically went downhill even faster than it already was. Little of its industry still functioned and that which did wasn't making money. They were also part of a country that offered no way to re-orient the local economy and produce renewed growth. This is one reason that many people, both ethnic Russians and also Ukrainians, in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast were actually supportive of the "little green men" in 2014. They were better off under Soviet rule and felt re-unification with Russia was a "good idea".

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?

The vast majority of the "reallocation of economic resources" had already happened by 2014. The "reallocation" was simply a reduction. Much of Donbas became "worthless" economically. Ukraine already had descended to "lower standards" of living  particularly in the Donbas. It happened well before the war started. The redistribution of population already had happened to a degree, but not as much as one might expect. Many young people did leave, but this was greatly mitigated by the fact that there wasn't really anywhere in Ukraine that was obviously stronger economically to attract them. Many left the country entirely. The older people felt they were too old to start over and would be living on state pensions anyway. Living in small Donbas villages was about as cheap as one could find.

Yes, Donbas is and will be an economically depressed area after the war, no matter how it "ends". It was that well before the war. The war has resulted in immense destruction of property there. The mines and unexploded ordinance will indeed be very problematic. However, that situation was true in northern France at the end of WWI and certainly true in much of eastern Europe at the end of WWII. Those places recovered relatively quickly. Not every small town was rebuilt, but many were. "Location, Location, Location" still applied. For many people, all they own is the land where their destroyed home or business was. They are very motivated to rebuild.

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

No. The same argument could be applied to Russia. Why would Russia want the Donbas even if Ukraine gave it to them? The Russian side of the border has similar economic problems. Why make it worse? I am guessing that maybe Putin thinks that reunification will "fix" all these problems. Obviously, it won't. The clock cannot be turned back. Steel production is not a "growth industry", particularly when your infrastructure is obsolete and you must follow strict environmental regulations.  I made this exact argument early on in this war. It was never about economics. It still isn't. There are people all over this planet fighting and dying in wars that will not benefit them economically.

[Goose]

Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about the state of the war:  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/u...-offensive.

Consistent with observations here, the article notes that Russia long ago gave up the pretense that it was merely seeking to keep Ukrainian cities intact, but put those cities and their people under "rightful" Russian control.  Russia no longer even attempts to hide that the goal is total destruction of Ukraine.  The "capture" of a city simply means that all the buildings have been destroyed and all the citizens have fled.  As a result, the article rightly notes that even the maximalist plans for rebuilding Ukraine would not restore the Donbas to the industrial powerhouse that it was before the war (or anything remotely close to that).

The Donbas was not anything like an "industrial powerhouse" before the war. It was a heavily depressed "rust belt" with no real prospects of an alternative future. From the article:

Under Soviet rule, especially under Stalin, the region became a center for metallurgy and mining through an enormous level of harsh Soviet planning. Heavily mined, polluted, and now filled with spent ammunition, the region cannot return to that past.

That "harsh level of Soviet planning" created a metals industry that was heavily embedded in the Soviet Union. Its factories were never efficient and competitive even when new. By the late 1980 they were terminally obsolete and continued to function at all only because the state controlled where things were built and at what price. In addition, over 50% of the Soviet economy involved various product transfers from one State-owned enterprise to another. Paraphrasing an administrator in a Donbas coal company just after Ukraine became independent: "Before, I sent a requisition to Moscow for shoring timber. I didn't know what it cost. It would just show up when I ordered it. It may not be quite what I ordered, but we could make do. Now I have to buy it. It is enormously expensive and I have to find a company that will supply it to me. Most of these companies are in Russia and are very hard to deal with. Right now we are shut down because we have no shoring material. I have no idea when we will re-open."

In short, the Donbas was already Pittsburgh except many years delayed.  Their "natural" partner was Russia which was now a "foreign country" that had equally large economic problems. Donbas economically went downhill even faster than it already was. Little of its industry still functioned and that which did wasn't making money. They were also part of a country that offered no way to re-orient the local economy and produce renewed growth. This is one reason that many people, both ethnic Russians and also Ukrainians, in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast were actually supportive of the "little green men" in 2014. They were better off under Soviet rule and felt re-unification with Russia was a "good idea".

To me, the takeaway is that, even if Ukraine survives, the country will not be what it once was.  The entire Donbas will be littered with unexploded mines and ordinances, not to mention exploded shells of former homes and other buildings.  That will mean a redistribution of the population geographically and a reallocation of economic resources to different types of production.  Ukraine will suffer from lower standards of living than in the past, which of course means much lower standards of living than any other country in Europe.  But what is the alternative?

The vast majority of the "reallocation of economic resources" had already happened by 2014. The "reallocation" was simply a reduction. Much of Donbas became "worthless" economically. Ukraine already had descended to "lower standards" of living  particularly in the Donbas. It happened well before the war started. The redistribution of population already had happened to a degree, but not as much as one might expect. Many young people did leave, but this was greatly mitigated by the fact that there wasn't really anywhere in Ukraine that was obviously stronger economically to attract them. Many left the country entirely. The older people felt they were too old to start over and would be living on state pensions anyway. Living in small Donbas villages was about as cheap as one could find.

Yes, Donbas is and will be an economically depressed area after the war, no matter how it "ends". It was that well before the war. The war has resulted in immense destruction of property there. The mines and unexploded ordinance will indeed be very problematic. However, that situation was true in northern France at the end of WWI and certainly true in much of eastern Europe at the end of WWII. Those places recovered relatively quickly. Not every small town was rebuilt, but many were. "Location, Location, Location" still applied. For many people, all they own is the land where their destroyed home or business was. They are very motivated to rebuild.

Also, if Ukraine were to reach the same conclusion that the article did, won't the people also decide that it makes sense to enter into a treaty that gives Russia a significant portion of the land that will not be particularly useful or populated for many years, if ever?

No. The same argument could be applied to Russia. Why would Russia want the Donbas even if Ukraine gave it to them? The Russian side of the border has similar economic problems. Why make it worse? I am guessing that maybe Putin thinks that reunification will "fix" all these problems. Obviously, it won't. The clock cannot be turned back. Steel production is not a "growth industry", particularly when your infrastructure is obsolete and you must follow strict environmental regulations.  I made this exact argument early on in this war. It was never about economics. It still isn't. There are people all over this planet fighting and dying in wars that will not benefit them economically.

[M T]

Excuse the mixed metaphor but it sounds like territorial genocide.  Not just scorched earth, but poisoned earth. 

Just suppose Ukraine ceded that area to Russia, what would Russia do with it?  Doing anything but making it a weapons testing ground would cost big bucks. So it would likely be uninhabitable for decades or more. It would give Russia a killing ground if any force tried to cross it.

[M T]

Excuse the mixed metaphor but it sounds like territorial genocide.  Not just scorched earth, but poisoned earth. 

Just suppose Ukraine ceded that area to Russia, what would Russia do with it?  Doing anything but making it a weapons testing ground would cost big bucks. So it would likely be uninhabitable for decades or more. It would give Russia a killing ground if any force tried to cross it.

[Goose]

Excuse the mixed metaphor but it sounds like territorial genocide.  Not just scorched earth, but poisoned earth. 

Just suppose Ukraine ceded that area to Russia, what would Russia do with it?  Doing anything but making it a weapons testing ground would cost big bucks. So it would likely be uninhabitable for decades or more. It would give Russia a killing ground if any force tried to cross it.

There were areas of Germany that were just as "destroyed" as anyplace in Ukraine. There was already large scale industrial pollution in Donbas before this war ever started. Few people moved away for that reason. There are many abandoned mines and immense slag piles in various places. Of course, there are in the US as well.

While there are many areas in Donbas that have had massive damage, there are others that have little or none. There are no places in Ukraine more destroyed than Berlin or Hamburg, or for certain Hiroshima.  People live in all these places today. Japan and Germany weren't exactly flush with cash after the war, but recovery happened. The US helped, but by no means did we "pay for" the entire recovery. There were places behind the iron curtain that were at least as destroyed as Donbas. They too were rebuilt. It was slower than in the west, but it happened. The Soviet Union didn't help, in fact they stole. Donbas won't be a ghost town. These places get rebuilt, sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly, but it will happen. Will they be "good, prosperous places to live?". Not anytime soon

[Goose]

Excuse the mixed metaphor but it sounds like territorial genocide.  Not just scorched earth, but poisoned earth. 

Just suppose Ukraine ceded that area to Russia, what would Russia do with it?  Doing anything but making it a weapons testing ground would cost big bucks. So it would likely be uninhabitable for decades or more. It would give Russia a killing ground if any force tried to cross it.

There were areas of Germany that were just as "destroyed" as anyplace in Ukraine. There was already large scale industrial pollution in Donbas before this war ever started. Few people moved away for that reason. There are many abandoned mines and immense slag piles in various places. Of course, there are in the US as well.

While there are many areas in Donbas that have had massive damage, there are others that have little or none. There are no places in Ukraine more destroyed than Berlin or Hamburg, or for certain Hiroshima.  People live in all these places today. Japan and Germany weren't exactly flush with cash after the war, but recovery happened. The US helped, but by no means did we "pay for" the entire recovery. There were places behind the iron curtain that were at least as destroyed as Donbas. They too were rebuilt. It was slower than in the west, but it happened. The Soviet Union didn't help, in fact they stole. Donbas won't be a ghost town. These places get rebuilt, sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly, but it will happen. Will they be "good, prosperous places to live?". Not anytime soon

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

[Goose]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Totally agree. IMO it would also be difficult to govern Ukraine in that scenario. Many different factions would arise with different reads on whether to re-unify with Russia, work with Russia, and/or join the EU / NATO. Joining NATO might be enough to keep Russia from attacking again, but would NATO allow Ukraine to join and if so would they honor Article 5 if Russia attacked? Russia will surely attempt political interference in the rump Ukraine even if they aren't (yet) attacking. Difficult to see this ending well, but as BC says Ukraine may feel they have no choice.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

Totally agree that it is difficult to attract foreign investment if your country lacks a reasonable national security situation. It is also difficult if your country has internal political instability and/or a significant degree of corruption.

[Goose]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Totally agree. IMO it would also be difficult to govern Ukraine in that scenario. Many different factions would arise with different reads on whether to re-unify with Russia, work with Russia, and/or join the EU / NATO. Joining NATO might be enough to keep Russia from attacking again, but would NATO allow Ukraine to join and if so would they honor Article 5 if Russia attacked? Russia will surely attempt political interference in the rump Ukraine even if they aren't (yet) attacking. Difficult to see this ending well, but as BC says Ukraine may feel they have no choice.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

Totally agree that it is difficult to attract foreign investment if your country lacks a reasonable national security situation. It is also difficult if your country has internal political instability and/or a significant degree of corruption.

[gocard14]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Totally agree. IMO it would also be difficult to govern Ukraine in that scenario. Many different factions would arise with different reads on whether to re-unify with Russia, work with Russia, and/or join the EU / NATO. Joining NATO might be enough to keep Russia from attacking again, but would NATO allow Ukraine to join and if so would they honor Article 5 if Russia attacked? Russia will surely attempt political interference in the rump Ukraine even if they aren't (yet) attacking. Difficult to see this ending well, but as BC says Ukraine may feel they have no choice.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

Totally agree that it is difficult to attract foreign investment if your country lacks a reasonable national security situation. It is also difficult if your country has internal political instability and/or a significant degree of corruption.

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.

[gocard14]

The other issue is that no one trusts Putin to honor any peace treaty with Ukraine, so the best a deal that cedes the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace does is pause hostilities.  Maybe Ukraine needs that after two and a half years of continual war, and maybe Russia's methodical advancing means that Ukraine will have no choice but to sue for peace and hope that something else will intervene and prevent Putin from resuming hostilities, but let's not kid ourselves, a peace treaty with Russia is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Totally agree. IMO it would also be difficult to govern Ukraine in that scenario. Many different factions would arise with different reads on whether to re-unify with Russia, work with Russia, and/or join the EU / NATO. Joining NATO might be enough to keep Russia from attacking again, but would NATO allow Ukraine to join and if so would they honor Article 5 if Russia attacked? Russia will surely attempt political interference in the rump Ukraine even if they aren't (yet) attacking. Difficult to see this ending well, but as BC says Ukraine may feel they have no choice.

Also, agree with Goose that even a thoroughly destroyed region can be rebuilt in less than a generation.  But in order to do that, you have to invest in the region, and in order to invest in the region, you have to be confident that it will not fall into war again.

BC

Totally agree that it is difficult to attract foreign investment if your country lacks a reasonable national security situation. It is also difficult if your country has internal political instability and/or a significant degree of corruption.

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.