[Goose]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/p...ve-ukraine

Interesting article. Like the first part especially

Washington has tried to find the sweet spot between supporting Ukraine and punishing Russia on the one hand, and reducing the risks of escalation on the other. As rational as this approach may appear, it rests on a faulty assumption: that Putin’s mind can be changed.

The article IMO correctly states that Putin will never end the war by deciding it just isn't worth it. However, the article the attempts to create what I believe to be a false dichotomy. The first arm of that dichotomy is that an aggressive posture by Ukraine can never force Russia to quit the war. It seems the authors believe the only way to make Russia quit fighting is by dictating terms from the steps of the Kremlin. Since that is not possible the idea of the Ukraine taking the offensive is rejected.

The second arm of the dichotomy is that after the "front" is stabilized, Ukraine should hunker down and defend. At this point the article IMO goes off the rails. It claims that Ukraine can hang on until Putin dies. It does add the possibility of Putin being forced out or killed. Right now Ukraine is being pounded relentlessly  from the air. Ukraine has only limited ability to suppress the Russian onslaught. Defending against air attack requires an air force. SAMS simply can't do it alone. It is also very difficult to defeat an air offensive without the ability to attack the air bases, launching points, and storage sites of the munitions used for said offensive.  The article also seems to believe that Ukrainian morale will hold up to a destroyed economy and a continually escalating air bombardment while being subjected to continuous ground offensives that kills many Ukrainians daily. Ukraine has to do this until Putin dies. IMO this approach is a guarantee of relatively rapid defeat.

The dichotomy is false for two reasons. First, Ukraine can force Putin to quit by creating conditions where the Russian people simply won't do it. They may overthrow Putin, but the can also just say no. This can be accomplished by raising the cost in blood, treasure, and inconvenience to the average Russian beyond what they will bear. That threshold is much, much lower than the Ukrainian one is. For Russia, as the article states, it is a war of choice. Putin chose to do it and the public went along. When the public no longer goes along and makes the opposite choice, Putin is in big trouble. It can also be done by convincing the average Russian that Russia too cannot "win" and risks more than it gains by continuing to try. Ukraine doesn't need to invade Russia to do this. It can do it by creating severe economic problems via damage to the Russian oil industry. It can also do it by taking back Crimea, leaving Russia less secure than they were at the start of the war.

Second, in order for Ukraine to "defend" itself it absolutely must force Russia to defend everywhere by the threat of Ukrainian attack. If that can't be done, Russia's already superior numbers are multiplied. Ukraine must also attack deep into Russia (via drones at a minimum) to force Russia to defend its infrastructure and economy. Thus even defense requires offense.

IMO it is impossible to believe the Ukrainian people will continue the fight if the policy becomes accepting continued attacks, poverty, and death indefinitely until either by divine intervention Putin dies or Ukraine is defeated. The population has already endured much and will endure a lot more if there is a way to victory. If there isn't, their continued resistance is futile.

[Goose]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/p...ve-ukraine

Interesting article. Like the first part especially

Washington has tried to find the sweet spot between supporting Ukraine and punishing Russia on the one hand, and reducing the risks of escalation on the other. As rational as this approach may appear, it rests on a faulty assumption: that Putin’s mind can be changed.

The article IMO correctly states that Putin will never end the war by deciding it just isn't worth it. However, the article the attempts to create what I believe to be a false dichotomy. The first arm of that dichotomy is that an aggressive posture by Ukraine can never force Russia to quit the war. It seems the authors believe the only way to make Russia quit fighting is by dictating terms from the steps of the Kremlin. Since that is not possible the idea of the Ukraine taking the offensive is rejected.

The second arm of the dichotomy is that after the "front" is stabilized, Ukraine should hunker down and defend. At this point the article IMO goes off the rails. It claims that Ukraine can hang on until Putin dies. It does add the possibility of Putin being forced out or killed. Right now Ukraine is being pounded relentlessly  from the air. Ukraine has only limited ability to suppress the Russian onslaught. Defending against air attack requires an air force. SAMS simply can't do it alone. It is also very difficult to defeat an air offensive without the ability to attack the air bases, launching points, and storage sites of the munitions used for said offensive.  The article also seems to believe that Ukrainian morale will hold up to a destroyed economy and a continually escalating air bombardment while being subjected to continuous ground offensives that kills many Ukrainians daily. Ukraine has to do this until Putin dies. IMO this approach is a guarantee of relatively rapid defeat.

The dichotomy is false for two reasons. First, Ukraine can force Putin to quit by creating conditions where the Russian people simply won't do it. They may overthrow Putin, but the can also just say no. This can be accomplished by raising the cost in blood, treasure, and inconvenience to the average Russian beyond what they will bear. That threshold is much, much lower than the Ukrainian one is. For Russia, as the article states, it is a war of choice. Putin chose to do it and the public went along. When the public no longer goes along and makes the opposite choice, Putin is in big trouble. It can also be done by convincing the average Russian that Russia too cannot "win" and risks more than it gains by continuing to try. Ukraine doesn't need to invade Russia to do this. It can do it by creating severe economic problems via damage to the Russian oil industry. It can also do it by taking back Crimea, leaving Russia less secure than they were at the start of the war.

Second, in order for Ukraine to "defend" itself it absolutely must force Russia to defend everywhere by the threat of Ukrainian attack. If that can't be done, Russia's already superior numbers are multiplied. Ukraine must also attack deep into Russia (via drones at a minimum) to force Russia to defend its infrastructure and economy. Thus even defense requires offense.

IMO it is impossible to believe the Ukrainian people will continue the fight if the policy becomes accepting continued attacks, poverty, and death indefinitely until either by divine intervention Putin dies or Ukraine is defeated. The population has already endured much and will endure a lot more if there is a way to victory. If there isn't, their continued resistance is futile.