[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?