This is a pretty solid piece by Eliot Cohen in the Atlantic on the calculus behind any potential settlement. I don't always agree with Cohen, especially on moral/philosophical points, but his logic is usually sound, as it is here.
This is a pretty solid piece by Eliot Cohen in the Atlantic on the calculus behind any potential settlement. I don't always agree with Cohen, especially on moral/philosophical points, but his logic is usually sound, as it is here.
Chornobyl took a drone strike:
Here is a picture of it. Realistically probably a shaheed or similar small drone that was either shot down passing over (Chernobyl is near the boarder), messed up by jamming, or simply malfunctioned.
I suspect the Ukrainians generally try to avoid shooting anything down over Chernobyl since most things still explode when they land.
In reply to aircooled :
I'm seeing reports that it was a Shaheed (id'd by debris inside the containment shelter) pointed south. But yeah, probably dealing with a malfunction (or similar). I'm sure there were plenty of targets that would be more "size appropriate" for that drone to strike at the facility if they were actually trying to disrupt anything in that area.
Yep you may recognize this engine block:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-chernobyl-zelenskyy-71d781dbd66754d0a548edd388f3447a
Just the outermost layer of the sarcophagus was penetrated and caught fire.
Ukraine is apparently heavily committed to drone operations, and it seems to be having a noticable effects on the front lines (at least some of them):
Russian advances may be slowing south of Pokrovsk due to degradation among frontline Russian units and intensified Ukrainian drone operations in the area.
So, we are wandering heavily into o2's area here, the negotiation "games" and maneuvering are beginning:
Doesn't look like there is much to worry about Ukraine being left out in the negotiations (at least from the US side...):
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US Vice President JD Vance met on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on February 14. Vance stated during a press conference following the meeting that the United States remains committed to ending the war and achieving a "durable, lasting peace" in Ukraine and not the "kind of peace that's going to have Eastern Europe in conflict just a couple years down the road."[1] Vance noted the importance of dialogue between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, and declined to speculate on possible conditions of a future peace agreement in order to "preserve the optionality" for the delegations. Vance and Zelensky both noted that the conversation was productive and Zelensky thanked the United States for continued military support.[2] Zelensky stated that the United States and Ukraine are preparing a plan to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression and finish the war in a just and lasting peace that provides tangible security guarantees for Ukraine. US President Donald Trump told reporters on February 14 that Ukraine would have a seat at the table during future peace negotiations with Russia to end the war.[3]
Russia is doing more Russia things (they of course are VERY experienced with media and narrative manipulation).
The Kremlin reportedly ordered Russian government-linked media to reduce reporting about US President Donald Trump and portray Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong and decisive leader after the February 12 Trump-Putin phone call. Russian opposition news outlet Meduza reported on February 14 that the Kremlin instructed Russian state-run and pro-government media outlets to frame Trump and Putin's February 12 call as Putin's "initiative and victory" and to use Trump's name less frequently in coverage of the call and other events.[7] Meduza reported that the Kremlin is concerned that the Russian public might see Trump as a more "proactive and decisive" leader than Putin and wants Russian media to emphasize that Putin alone is responsible for the outcome of negotiations between him and Trump. An unnamed political strategist in the Russian Presidential Administration told Meduza that the Kremlin does not want the Russian public to perceive Trump as a "strong leader capable of changing the situation" and Putin as a passive or weak leader in comparison. The political strategist added that the Kremlin also instructed the Russian media to manage the public's expectations about negotiations to not create "false, overly optimistic expectations." The Russian information space has previously portrayed Trump as a pragmatic leader with whom Russia could work, but the Kremlin may be attempting to negatively shift the Russian public's perception of Trump in order to emphasize Putin's strength and agency amid reports of possible future peace negotiations and bilateral negotiations.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is attempting to create conditions to frame Putin as the victor over US President Donald Trump in negotiations.
This is almost funny:
Russian officials and information space actors have notably not amplified the Russian information operation aimed at portraying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as the illegitimate leader of Ukraine since the February 12 Trump-Putin call. Russian President Vladimir Putin intensified this information operation in January 2024 and most recently questioned Zelensky's legitimacy during a televised interview on January 28, and other Russian officials had amplified this information operation as of February 10.[8] It remains unclear how long Russian officials and information space actors will refrain from amplifying this information operation, however. It would be a significant concession if Putin and other Russian officials recognized Zelensky's legitimacy as Ukraine's president after repeatedly questioning the legitimacy of all Ukrainian leaders since 2014.
Literally, the next day!:
Kremlin-controlled state media used an interview with Kremlin-affiliated former Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Deputy Viktor Medvedchuk to reiterate the Kremlin's false narrative about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's illegitimacy and Russia's longstanding goal of destroying the Ukrainian state...
....The platforming of the Kremlin's false narrative about Ukraine's legal inability to negotiate by a major Kremlin-controlled outlet casts serious doubts on Moscow's willingness to negotiate in good faith about a settlement of the war and sets informational conditions for Russia to violate any agreement reached on the grounds that the Ukrainian government had no legal right to conclude it
Just wanted to leave a note here that there is a new documentary out called The Porcelain War about Ukrainian artists during the war that is being released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain_War
I highly expect some very dramatic (and sadly probably some silly / ridiculous) movies and stories to come out of this. Unfortunately, probably not very many happy ones. I could certainly see potential in a well done version of a movie called The Ghost of Kyiv (get Tom Cruise involved he does anything aviation related, very well) that starts with the failed Russian attempt at Antonov airport and move into the initial air defense of Kyiv and how it was the result of many heroes, but it was decided to make it more powerful by creating the mythical "ghost" and that was OK, because.... whatever it takes to save their beloved Ukraine... with foreshadowing of many, many more sacrifices to come.
Found a map of Ukrainian mineral / petro resources.
As I read the reporting on the ongoing US-Russia meetings in Saudi Arabia, I had a passing thought: is this, loosely speaking, analagous to Nixon going to China in 1972? In that instance, Nixon was able to dramatically improve relations between the US and the pariah state of Red China, with the dual benefits of helping the US to get out of Vietnam, and overnight creating the potential of a US-China counterweight to the USSR, which immediately recognized the potential for isolation and softened its stance toward the US (Nixon went to Moscow only three months later and signed the ABM Treaty). If - and it is a huge if - Trump wants to refocus on the China threat, and is able to improve relations with Russia to the extent that the war in Ukraine is at least moving toward resolution and the Europeans are bumping their defense spending in a meaningful way, success here would allow a much freer hand in the Pacific.
There do appear to be a lot of assumptions about what this meeting in Saudi Arabia really is. Some clearly think it is the ultimate negotiation where the US and Russia will decide Ukraine's fate. That clearly is not what it is. It very much seems more like a first step in creating a channel of communication between the US and Russia. Just getting Russia to talk about the subject at ALL has clearly been an huge leap up until now.
To highlight this, the primary Russian negotiator is not even present in Saudi Arabia:
The Russian delegation participating in Russian-American talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on February 18 does not include one of the members of Russian President Vladimir Putin's innermost circle who had been reported as a likely negotiator.[11] The Russian delegation includes Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov, and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed that the talks will focus on "restoring the entire complex of US-Russian relations" and preparing for possible future discussions about the war in Ukraine between US President Donald Trump and Putin.[12] Peskov added that Lavrov and Ushakov "will be able to send urgent reports" to Putin while in Riyadh — suggesting that the Russian delegation's purpose is to convey messages and inform the Kremlin, rather than to negotiate on Putin's behalf.[13]
There was a potential miss-step involving the US delegation in Europe talking about how the result will involve giving up territory and no NATO membership. Although almost certainly a correct and reasonable assessment, generally not a good idea to start before negotiations with a seemingly concession, especially with the generally maximalist demands Russia has had. (O2 might have a different assessment here)
And to give some more ideas of Russia's likely starting point (amazingly not complete Ukrainian capitulation, so I guess that is a step!)
The Kremlin reiterated its demands that Ukraine cede additional territory in eastern and southern Ukraine to Russia and disband the Ukrainian military in the future while continuing to message that the Kremlin is unwilling to make territorial concessions itself in any future peace negotiations. Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN) Vasily Nebenzya stated during a UN Security Council meeting on February 17 that Ukraine has "irrevocably lost" Crimea, the "Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics" (referring to occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), and Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts.[1] Nebenzya insinuated that peace negotiations should "correct" the situation in these oblasts and that Ukraine should cede the remaining parts of the four oblasts that Ukraine currently controls. Nebenzya is calling for Ukraine to cede the roughly 30 percent of the total area in Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts that Russia does not currently occupy. (Russian forces currently occupy roughly 99 percent of Luhansk Oblast.) Nebenzya also demanded that Ukraine become a "demilitarized" neutral state in the future and that Ukraine not join any alliances or security blocs.[2] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed on February 17 the possibility of Russia making territorial concessions during future negotiations.[3] Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in June 2024 that Ukraine should withdraw its forces from and cede any unoccupied territory in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts to Russia, and Nebenzya appears to be resurrecting this demand ahead of bilateral US-Russia negotiations.[4] US Special Presidential Envoy for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg stated during the Munich Security Conference on February 15 that Russia must make territorial concessions during negotiations, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted on February 16 that US President Donald Trump wants to see the war end in a way that "protects Ukraine's sovereignty."[5]
They also don't want the Europeans involved. Though, if the US in involved, clearly the Europeans should be also. They have been supplying very significant support, and may be a more primary supplier if the talks break down!: (games, games, games. Negotiaions with the Russians has to be akin to your worst used car lot experience!!)
Lavrov and Nebenzya also categorically rejected European involvement in future peace negotiations and accused European countries of being aggressive toward Russia. Nebenzya claimed that European Union (EU) countries and the United Kingdom (UK) are "incapable" of reaching any agreement with Russia and cannot be party to any future agreements about the war in Ukraine.[6]...
....Russian accusations that European countries and the EU more broadly (implicitly as distinct from the US) are acting aggressively towards Russia is a notable informational inflection and likely indicates a new Kremlin effort to drive a wedge between the US and Europe taking advantage of tensions evident at the recent Munich Security Conference.[8]
Then of course there is this. Nothing to do with negotiations, but damn:
Russian commanders continue to give orders for Russian forces to execute Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) on the frontline. Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets reported on February 17 that footage shows Russian forces executing three surrendering Ukrainian POWs in an unspecified location after a Russian commander orders the soldiers to kill two of the POWs.[35] ISW has long assessed that Russian battlefield commanders are either complicit in or enabling their subordinates to execute Ukrainian POWs.[36]
I'd say it's time for Europe to start building nukes, lots of them all pointed east.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
I'm not sure how that would help, Russia probably couldn't successfully deploy a nuclear weapon right now if they tried to, and with the West having no real interest in using nukes for anything but a MAD deterrent, the most that would likely do is feed into Russia's insecurities and cause them to work harder on the Burevestnik project (since it could evade Western defenses and has a way better effort/destruction ratio than a traditional nuke).
02Pilot said:If - and it is a huge if - Trump wants to refocus on the China threat, and is able to improve relations with Russia to the extent that the war in Ukraine is at least moving toward resolution and the Europeans are bumping their defense spending in a meaningful way, success here would allow a much freer hand in the Pacific.
The only bargaining chip I could see being offered that Ukraine would accept would be one for which it does not lose territory. Ukraine needs to keep its sovereignty and it's borders, including those of Crimea, intact.
That would leave the US and Europe to make up for whatever Russia feels it's losing out on by not controlling Ukraine. All sanctions removed, access to resources, commitments to purchase Russian gas, no NATO support of Ukraine, and probably some ability of Russia to solidify its hold of "controlled" areas in the Donbas.
I suspect that Ukraine will counter with "ok, you can keep Crimea and Donbas, but we want into NATO, and we want funds to rebuild from either Russian or Europe/US." I'd probably also expect some sort of percentage of the profits from resources extracted in the Donbas region to be on the table for negotiation, because that area is Ukraine's resource cash-cow. If Ukraine bleeds, so does the rest of the world.
I don't see that forming any alliance against Chinese influence everywhere else in the world.
aircooled said:There do appear to be a lot of assumptions about what this meeting in Saudi Arabia really is. Some clearly think it is the ultimate negotiation where the US and Russia will decide Ukraine's fate. That clearly is not what it is. It very much seems more like a first step in creating a channel of communication between the US and Russia. Just getting Russia to talk about the subject at ALL has clearly been an huge leap up until now.
To highlight this, the primary Russian negotiator is not even present in Saudi Arabia:
The Russian delegation participating in Russian-American talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on February 18 does not include one of the members of Russian President Vladimir Putin's innermost circle who had been reported as a likely negotiator.[11] The Russian delegation includes Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov, and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed that the talks will focus on "restoring the entire complex of US-Russian relations" and preparing for possible future discussions about the war in Ukraine between US President Donald Trump and Putin.[12] Peskov added that Lavrov and Ushakov "will be able to send urgent reports" to Putin while in Riyadh — suggesting that the Russian delegation's purpose is to convey messages and inform the Kremlin, rather than to negotiate on Putin's behalf.[13]
There was a potential miss-step involving the US delegation in Europe talking about how the result will involve giving up territory and no NATO membership. Although almost certainly a correct and reasonable assessment, generally not a good idea to start before negotiations with a seemingly concession, especially with the generally maximalist demands Russia has had. (O2 might have a different assessment here)
And to give some more ideas of Russia's likely starting point (amazingly not complete Ukrainian capitulation, so I guess that is a step!)
The Kremlin reiterated its demands that Ukraine cede additional territory in eastern and southern Ukraine to Russia and disband the Ukrainian military in the future while continuing to message that the Kremlin is unwilling to make territorial concessions itself in any future peace negotiations. Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN) Vasily Nebenzya stated during a UN Security Council meeting on February 17 that Ukraine has "irrevocably lost" Crimea, the "Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics" (referring to occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), and Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts.[1] Nebenzya insinuated that peace negotiations should "correct" the situation in these oblasts and that Ukraine should cede the remaining parts of the four oblasts that Ukraine currently controls. Nebenzya is calling for Ukraine to cede the roughly 30 percent of the total area in Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts that Russia does not currently occupy. (Russian forces currently occupy roughly 99 percent of Luhansk Oblast.) Nebenzya also demanded that Ukraine become a "demilitarized" neutral state in the future and that Ukraine not join any alliances or security blocs.[2] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed on February 17 the possibility of Russia making territorial concessions during future negotiations.[3] Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in June 2024 that Ukraine should withdraw its forces from and cede any unoccupied territory in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts to Russia, and Nebenzya appears to be resurrecting this demand ahead of bilateral US-Russia negotiations.[4] US Special Presidential Envoy for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg stated during the Munich Security Conference on February 15 that Russia must make territorial concessions during negotiations, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted on February 16 that US President Donald Trump wants to see the war end in a way that "protects Ukraine's sovereignty."[5]
They also don't want the Europeans involved. Though, if the US in involved, clearly the Europeans should be also. They have been supplying very significant support, and may be a more primary supplier if the talks break down!: (games, games, games. Negotiaions with the Russians has to be akin to your worst used car lot experience!!)
Lavrov and Nebenzya also categorically rejected European involvement in future peace negotiations and accused European countries of being aggressive toward Russia. Nebenzya claimed that European Union (EU) countries and the United Kingdom (UK) are "incapable" of reaching any agreement with Russia and cannot be party to any future agreements about the war in Ukraine.[6]...
....Russian accusations that European countries and the EU more broadly (implicitly as distinct from the US) are acting aggressively towards Russia is a notable informational inflection and likely indicates a new Kremlin effort to drive a wedge between the US and Europe taking advantage of tensions evident at the recent Munich Security Conference.[8]
I don't think the US statement about no NATO and territorial concessions was accidental, but I also don't think it was primarily directed at the Russians. The Russians were never going to agree to anything without both of those conditions met, so it's sort of irrelevant to them, but to the Europeans and Ukraine, it's an open public declaration that the US is not going to be swayed into their deeply unrealistic idea of how negotiations work. That said, I don't expect the US to let Russia off easily, but for now, getting them to sit down and discuss things is a necessary first step, which was really the only goal here.
I think Peskov's statement about keeping Putin in the loop if more for domestic cult-of-personality reasons than anything else. Lavrov is a pro and knows what he's doing; he will have been fully briefed on Putin's boundaries, even though that discussion is off in the future somewhere.
Don't put too much weight on the red lines set out by both sides - they are notoriously fungible. There's going to be a lot of backroom horse-trading going on once these things get started in earnest. Lots of stuff is on the table that won't be discussed openly: individual sanctions, some prestige stuff, technology transfer, market access, etc.
The nightmare scenario here is that the US and Russia come to some sort of deal (let's for a moment assume that it's a legitimate compromise, one that neither is happy about, but is willing to accept) and that Ukraine says "nope, we'll keep fighting". In that case, the burden of supporting it will fall on the Europeans, as will the stink of defeat when they finally can't keep it up any more and pull the plug (think Saigon 1975). Zelensky is adamant that Ukraine will not accept anything they are not party to negotiating, but his options are narrowing rapidly. He is attempting to triangulate by talking to Turkey (joint press conference with Erdogan today), knowing that the Turks feel sidelined by both sides meeting in Saudi Arabia, but Turkey isn't going to risk pissing off Putin too far (Erdogan claims he's willing to host future negotiations, not backstop Ukraine's continuing war effort), so this is going nowhere.
The real losers here are the EU. They've been proven impotent, raging at the US and calling for ridiculous things like a European army that will never get off the ground (it's been tried, repeatedly). No matter what happens in Ukraine, the EU looks weak and divided, and scrambling to make up for decades of playing with themselves and calling it diplomacy and state-building.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Well, I'd say Russia invading the Baltics or the Suwałki Gap would be a MAD moment when Poland started kicking their ass and Russia starts threatening with their nukes. Even just one more underwater cable and we block of the Baltic Sea and then next... POW
Especially after we block off the Denmark (Danish) Straight with 4 Iowa Class Battleships parked in the way (shown below to scale). 
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
You know there are no more Iowa Class Battleships anymore right?
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
Not going to happen. The Russians want to weaken the West and live to enjoy it; any actual invasion of NATO territory is going to make the latter portion of that difficult. Even if the US decided that Article 5 was just a suggestion (it's not, but it's also more ambiguously worded than people think), the French and the Brits could lob enough fissile material at Russia to keep things costly, and the Russians know it. And it's not like Moscow has an abundance of hardware or manpower to throw westward in any case.
What they are doing is lots of hybrid warfare stuff. The WSJ had an interesting piece on a previously unreported Russian intel outfit set up to do just this kind of work.
In reply to Stampie :
Ohhh, let the man dream. He just likes big guns! (...and he cannot lie... you other brothers can't deny...). 
There are actually a number of Iowa class battleships around, just none in service (all museums) of course. There is one in Long Beach, and obviously one in Pearl Harbor. Honestly, not quite a big as you would think they are. There are/were VERY fast though, over 30 knots! (that's speedboat speed)
Kind of a silly idea in a way (the modernized battleships), but as far as being a movable symbol of US power and intimidation... that they can do! Apparently very expensive to operate though!
In reply to Stampie :
Commissioned/Recommissioned and Decommissioned/Preserved 2 to 4 times each, kind of a semantics thing I would say. Even stationary they would be hard to sink and would make a great blockade symbol.
Blow up a couple of Chinese freighters with a couple of 16" shells for dragging their anchors over everyone's cables.
You know how China is harassing the Philippine's ships by trying to ram them with their new Coast Guard cutter? It would be fun to watch one of the Iowas run down and split the Nansha in two and it wouldn't even dent our battleship. 33-35 knots vs 25 knots.
Wikipedia.org: Iowa-class battleship
Wikipedia.org: Chinese cutter Nansha
Edit: It took me longer than I had hoped to write the above text but I vividly remember Ronny Raygun recommissioning the battle wagons to play in the middle east back in the 80s.
pheller said:02Pilot said:If - and it is a huge if - Trump wants to refocus on the China threat, and is able to improve relations with Russia to the extent that the war in Ukraine is at least moving toward resolution and the Europeans are bumping their defense spending in a meaningful way, success here would allow a much freer hand in the Pacific.
The only bargaining chip I could see being offered that Ukraine would accept would be one for which it does not lose territory. Ukraine needs to keep its sovereignty and it's borders, including those of Crimea, intact.
That would leave the US and Europe to make up for whatever Russia feels it's losing out on by not controlling Ukraine. All sanctions removed, access to resources, commitments to purchase Russian gas, no NATO support of Ukraine, and probably some ability of Russia to solidify its hold of "controlled" areas in the Donbas.
I suspect that Ukraine will counter with "ok, you can keep Crimea and Donbas, but we want into NATO, and we want funds to rebuild from either Russian or Europe/US." I'd probably also expect some sort of percentage of the profits from resources extracted in the Donbas region to be on the table for negotiation, because that area is Ukraine's resource cash-cow. If Ukraine bleeds, so does the rest of the world.
I don't see that forming any alliance against Chinese influence everywhere else in the world.
I never said alliance. The US and Russia aren't going to become best buddies overnight, even in the best of circumstances. But the Trump Administration has clearly stated they want to pivot to China; in order to do that, they need to reduce their European commitment. Part of that is getting Europe to do some of the heavy lifting, but if Russia is openly hostile, it gets harder and costs more. If the US can get Russia to stop fighting in Ukraine and dial back the hybrid warfare stuff against Europe by eliminating the immediate Russian concern of Western expansion into Ukraine, the US can move to focus on the Pacific more quickly and efficiently. A Russia that's trying to play China and the US off each other (think about what India's doing) is preferable to one that is actively aligning with China (think 2 against 1 versus 1 against 1 against 1).
I can't say exactly what form the settlement will take, but I am willing to say categorically that Ukraine will lose territory, including Crimea. Realistically, it should be happy if it gets enforceable neutrality (which means continued military support, though likely not on a donation basis for too long after fighting stops) and a generous support package to rebuild, along with unfettered access to US and European markets, which includes maintaining access to the Black Sea. If they get that, they'll be in good shape in a decade.
You'll need to log in to post.
