Not really

I wish it was that clear-cut and if, as you say, Ukraine agrees to never join Nato this war will end and real negotiations can take place.
Unfortunately, the "psychopath-in-chief" keeps offering a different justification for starting this war from one discourse to another.
I should start collecting all the videos and other materials we can have access to and show how he has changed his demands every single time. Sometimes it's just subtle semantics.
First it was the genocide against Russian ethnics, then the possible extension of Nato in Ukraine, then the extension of Nato in the last countries accepted, then the extension to the entire Eastern block.
No, he is behaving like a bully and you can't trust a word coming out of his mouth.
Some demands are unacceptable

Biggest loser out of this (aside from Ukraine) is Europe. US comes out as a winner.

More likely the war industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...strial_complex

If Russia gets: Crimea, recognition of breakaway republics, commitment for neutrality and no-NATO, de-militarization, lifting of sanctions and immunity from prosecutiion - then it seems like a good deal and they could withdraw having achieved some important goals.

China (and India?) will come out as the real winners. Although I do wonder why India has this obvious pro-Putin position. Any opinion, Phil? Because to me it does look weird.

why they should? who will stop them from invading UA and go further?
this is good deal only for those weak europeans who tired of the war and want back to their favorite tv shows , barbecues and growing dividends of ru stocks

They had already signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and he still attacked Ru's neighbours. Time and again, it appears one Treaty, one Agreement does not stop these tyrants from attacking other countries. Do I have any reasons to believe otherwise?

China may not be a winner, the US is pushing them to the loser camp with allegations of military support (doesn't sound credible IMO - downsides are too high for China to support militarily) perhaps with a view to sanctioning China either officially or through public opinion (many companies already cut ties to China for their refusal to condemn the invasion). China is in an awkward position, on the one hand, they have a long-standing policy of non-intervention, however, in the context of the Ukraine conflict, this is at odds with their position on respecting sovereignty.

If the US do push harsh sanctions on China over their inaction on Russia, I see potential black swan risks over Taiwan.

I don't know much about India-Russia relationship other than they were long-standing trading partners since Soviet times and militarily, India depends on Russian weapons. Russia also supported India on a number of issues including Kashmir. I suspect Russia support of India is also largely to counter Chinese influence.

Russia and China are really strategic competitors, they've only been pushed together out of necessity due to the greater threat to both from the US.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

sure, they will break agreements when it suits them. so the only real long-term solution is not based on trust, but interests. if they have more to lose than to gain from re-invading UA, then they won't do it.

UA will have to look after their own interests. they can strike a deal now or wait until more of their cities are flattened and their citizens die or leave. If it lasts more than a few months, Europe will not care any more and it will be old news.

The US will be happy to keep feeding weapons in and funding a proxy war with Russia. They only stand to benefit as countries strengthen NATO commitments and new countries wish to join NATO. They also benefit, if Europe turns its back on Russian oil and gas to the benefit of US LNG suppliers. In fact, you could argue that US interests are against peace in Ukraine.

__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

Actually, Europe will be the long term winner if they succeed in eventually breaking their dependence on Russian gas and oil.
They have now clearly seen the downside of such dependence

And they signed the Minsk agreements but continued to provide military support to the separatists, sadly Russia cannot be trusted.

what downsides?

Russia has already invaded Ukraine three times in the last eight years and each time made gains not losses, so based on this record why would they not make a fourth attempt despite any agreement signed now.

Add Russia to the list of losers/loosers. At the start of the war Russian economy was about the size of Brazil. Let's see how it finishes at the end of the war with lots of deaths of young workers, Russian refugees fleeing the purge of traitors Putin just started, oil being bought from other sources and economic activity paralyzed during the war. So, at the start of the war Russia was Brazil with nukes, at end of the war will be _____ with nukes.

And that's the happy scenario. If Putin's regime is worn out by the war, all separatist movements in Russia will start having ideas. War may continue in other fronts and Russia stay on the way to impoverishment. So, where's the bottom?

Indeed, these tanks are being sent on suicide missions.

There are so many places for soldiers with anti tank weapons to hide in an urban environment and so can destroy one tank after another without any fear of being taken out subsequently by air or infantry support.

Not sure about that, Russian oil and gas is shiny and cheap and easy to get hold of. I would say that as soon as the ink is dry on a cease fire or peace treaty the EU will be buying Russian gas and oil again. I think it´s called "Easing of sanctions to stimulate economic growth."

That's why I would assume that once a certain grace-period has passed, pressure will mount on Zelensky to sign whatever is on the table.

Hell, even Israel's Bennett has done that a while ago (though, of course, there are strategic reasons for that, too: Israel is sort-of-depending on Russia to keep Syria from totally glitching into a septic tank of anarchy like rest of the countries the West tried to "fix" (Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq say hello)).

Also, how can Biden call Putin a "War Criminal" and expect from Putin to shake hands and sit across from him at some summit in the future?

You'd expect that from Trump. And I believe even he was smart enough to avoid denominations like that one. At least most of the time. ;-)


There's no way this can result in a happy end. It's just different levels of messed up, depending on which side you end up.

So far three reports of drones flying into NATO countries, probably due to technical problems.

Just demonstrates how difficult it is to keep a war contained within one country in Europe.

Worst case a bomb carrying drone crashes in a NATO country causing death and damage, hopefully, it will not cause an escalation involving countries outside of Russia and Ukraine.

couldn't agree more with your post, thanks