\n<\/p>\n
Yves here. Below is an article served up as a reader critical thinking exercise, both for its reliance on dubious information (such as propaganda about the supposedly dire state of the Russian economy) So hopefully you will have some fun having at it as well as debating the finer points of where the conflict appears to be.<\/p>\n
Let me offer a few to get the discussion rolling:<\/p>\n
1. The idea that the US can presently \u201cforce Zelensky\u201d to do anything is a canard given US politics. The way the US could quickly bring Ukraine to heel would be to cut off intel support which would include targeting assistance and satellite data. With Lindsey Graham still keeping up his \u201cbone crushing sanctions\u201d demand, which Trump now understands would wreck the US via Chinese retaliation, Trump can\u2019t look soft on Ukraine. He has to at least have enough in the way of optics to keep the nutters at bay.<\/p>\n
2. Notice the personalization, of Putin as bad guy, which serves to direct attention away from the fact that Russia has existential security interests at stake.<\/p>\n
3. The framing that Ukraine can somehow still \u201cwin\u201d the way. US officials have taken to saying that Ukraine must accept the fact that it has lost the territory Russia now occupies (how much they believe the Zelensky fig leaf that maybe Ukraine can get it back in the future is open to question). So what is \u201cwinning\u201d give the current givens? For Zelensky, it is to hang on to power as long as possible and somehow get out alive. For Ukraine, there is no \u201cwin\u201d but cutting losses and having a rump state that really is neutral, as in the West stops meddling, which would lead, as intended, to a later revival of combat. Good luck with that.<\/p>\n
4. It is true that Russia has been chary of assaults on bigger cities. Some of that is seeking to keep Russian casualties down; slow strangulation, while not as satisfying to the peanut gallery, does the job too. But Alexander Mercouris today made a point regarding the Russians proceeding in a measured matter in the linchpin city of Pokrovsk, that the Russians prefer to have Ukraine feed yet more weapons and men in a futile defense. We\u2019ve said repeatedly that the reason for the purportedly slow Russian advance is not just the difficulty of breaking through well fortified lines, but that Russia\u2019s aim is to destroy Ukraine\u2019s army. It\u2019s much easier to do that by having Ukraine throw resources at Russian forces when Russia has short supply lines.<\/p>\n
Although the importance of cracking the last defense line in eastern Ukraine would give Russia the opportunity to make big territorial advances (note that the Slaviansk-Kramatorsk line has repeatedly been depicted as weaker than the preceding three major lines, due both to geography and I believe less robust fortification), consider another view on the merits of fortifications, albeit via a fictionalized account.<\/p>\n