The idea of peace negotiations with the Russians is crazier than any of Trump's appointments. The Russians do not negotiate, period. They conquer. The only way to make Russians negotiate for peace is to defeat them on the battlefield. The last time ANY country was defeated by Russia and yet managed to negotiate a permanent peace agreement fully preserving its sovereignty (even if over greatly diminished territory) was in 1878. But even then the Russian troops approaching Constantinople stopped only because British battleships trained their guns on them and gently encouraged them to start negotiations instead of capturing and annexing the Ottoman capital. You have to go another half century back to find an example without such external pressure. The normal rule is that if you fail to kick Russian invaders out of your country, you become part of the Russian Empire or at least some kind of a vassal state - just ceding territory won't be enough (although it may well be part of the deal).
Yes. They did not have full sovereignty. They had Soviet censorship - e.g. The Manchurian Candidate was banned in Finland. They were not allowed to join NATO or EU. They were required to have a defense plan in case of invasion from the West (and they were actually obligated to defend the USSR from an attack from that direction). They were required to return any Soviet citizen who managed to flee across the border. Etc. etc. etc. And the only reason the terms were not even worse was American pressure at the time when Stalin had much bigger fish to fry in Europe and completely depended on American shipments in his ability to conduct offensive operations. That was also the only occasion after 1878 when the Russians defeated a country but signed a lasting peace agreement and neither annexed it nor installed a puppet government.
Still, for the Ukrainians to accept the same terms as Finland would be a national suicide. The Soviets did not consider Finns the Russians (even though they are arguably more related to them than to the Ukrainians), and the censorship they imposed did not try to suppress Finnish national identity as it was not seen as inherently anti-Soviet. But the very Ukrainian national identity is viewed by the Russians as extremely anti-Russian. So any semi-permanent peace deal genuinely acceptable to Russia will require suppression of the Ukrainian national identity and promotion of the Russian one (e.g. make Russian the official language, place all Orthodox churches under the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate, censor history textbooks etc.). You can read Russian ideas about the ideal outcome here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine And yes, I've just checked - the original Russian article is STILL posted on the website of the state news agency: https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html
Appreciate your insights on this Andrew. I agree that it’s highly unlikely Putin will negotiate unless he is faced with some type of ‘defeat’ on the battlefield.
I guess the question is what does that defeat look like? For me, it seems inconceivable that Ukraine will take back all the territory it has lost. Further, NATO membership appears unlikely at the present time.
A scenario I could foresee would be some type of military ‘price tag’ that is unacceptable to Putin i.e. an end to Russia’s ability to advance on the battlefield combined with a ranged aerial campaign on Russian infrastructure/economic targets.
If this was supported by genuine security guarantees, including the presence of Western military troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peace deal it could work.
To me the mutual deterrence that held for several months in the Black Sea in terms of each side avoiding attacks on commercial shipping is evidence that Putin can be deterred if the cost is high enough to him.
Russian economy is in bad shape and deteriorating. Most importantly, it produces several times fewer tanks, IFVs and artillery barrels than Russia loses at the front. In a year or so not only economic pressure may become too hard to bear, but the military equipment may be at unacceptably low levels. So Russia may simply be unable to go on. And then Ukraine may actually be able to start taking back a lot of territory (especially if by then it has 100 or so Western combat jets and has largely suppressed Russian air defenses in Crimea and Kherson Region). I mean, the Russians can't hold the Ukrainians off with just Kalashnikovs and drones - they need armored vehicles and artillery. And yes, a ranged campaign can compound their problems. Russia also has problems with manpower. Another mobilization would not only be very unpopular, but would also aggravate already existing labor shortage (especially since it can also trigger another way of men fleeing Russia). So by 2026 Putin may be faced with a choice between very unpopular mobilization plus high inflation and a possible collapse of his left flank in Ukraine.
I agree with a lot of that, however, one of the stories of this war has been the difficulty both sides have had overcoming well manned prepared defences which makes me dubious Ukraine would be able to take back much territory.
If you look at the role armour has played it has been bit part. The gains Russia has made this year have been down to an attritional approach that has seen mass casualties that Ukraine would/should not pursue. Indeed, the introduction of North Korean troops suggests Russia won’t be able to sustain it for that long.
I’m also sceptical about the impact F-16/Mirage will have on assisting Ukraine in taking back territory. Russia still has highly effective layered air defence which will make operating near the front very difficult. The benefits of F-16 are more likely to be felt in air defence.
I don't know that Russian air defense will continue be highly effective on the western flank - that's why I mentioned it. If you look at the map, Russian held territory there looks like a peninsula almost surrounded by Ukrainian held territory and the Black Sea. That entire "peninsula" is within HIMARS range. And further back in Crimea Russian air defenses are within ATACMS and Storm Shadow range (and in fact is it constantly getting hit). And JDAMs can actually be dropped from some distance (in fact Ukraine ALREADY used JDAM-ER to hit Russia proper - there's even a video of the hit).
I don't know that any prepared defenses can hold out long against air attacks. In WWII they never did. Especially when you add ranged attacks against logistics. When (and if) the Ukrainians bring down the Kerch Bridge, the Chonhar Bridges and whatever bridges the newly constructed railroad from Mariupol to Melitopol runs over, Russian logistics in the far west will get much worse, especially if Western fighters are able to fly combat patrols and attack trucks.
Wait, you said they were not allowed to join NATO or the EU after the continuation war, but at that time there was no NATO or EU. The Finns walked a tightrope but they were not subservient to the Russians. They joined the EU in 1995
They were created soon after. And joining either was out of the question. So Finland certainly was not allowed to have independent foreign policy. Plus, as I said, there was Soviet interference in domestic affairs in the form of censorship (and especially self-censorship practiced by the Finns). Finland had absolutely the best outcome of all parts of the Russian Empire at the time of its first collapse in 1917, but it did not completely escape the Russian World until the second collapse of the Russian Empire in 1991. Ukraine may have to wait until the third one in 20??.
Your comment on the events of the late 19th century brings up the subject of the Crimean war and to my mind, how Russian ends have failed in several key instances in the past. Britain was aligned with France (yes France despite earlier animosities with the English) in their actions to stop Russia from having an open door to the Mediterranean. Military they where successful in crimping Russian ambitions on Constantinople in Crimea, but that was in retrospect not what stopped Russia, who as today, are not troubled much by attrition of forces, rather as has been speculated, the loss of finance support from other interests in Europe, Sweden and Austria in particular. This though is not the only time Russian financial support to its military adventures had to deal with reality on the ground. The Bolsheviks themselves in their successful overthrow of the provisional Russian government were aided by the financial drain of that government's support of participants to the World War I conflict (this leaves out the disastrous financial after affects of the Russo-Japanese War on imperial Russia). Closer to home, the Soviet government was not brought down by any direct military action, but the accumulated debts of the Cold War and Afghanistan “Special Military Operation”.
While historical precedent is not necessary prognosticatory, it might suggest any resolution of the current conflict in Ukraine as not ending in any peace capitulation on Ukraine’s part, but rather that given the direction Putin’s country is heading with its territorial ambitions, it will be the collapse of Russian ability to prolong the conflict that will right the ship.
Yes, Russian economy keeps deteriorating. They are already only able to continue the war thanks to huge Soviet stockpiles. But they are not endless (apart from being obsolete).
In the Guardian: "Biden urges Xi to dissuade North Korea from deepening Russian support." Yeah, that'll do it. Jesus, Joe, just fecking give the Ukrainians as much as you can before you depart, and lift the restrictions. God almighty.
Russia runs out of gold mid-2025, at which point the choices are (1) hyperinflation or (2) stop paying the soldiers. Either way, the Russian government probably gets overthrown. But I think the Russian economic collapse happens before that.
There are signs of stress all over the economy, with the railways being the most stressed. The railways are already a critical bottleneck for both war materiel and civilian food supply. In order to keep those both going, Putin would have to send lots more people into the railway (worker shortage!) and also smuggle in lots of parts (locomotive shortage!). It would be hard to replace the locomotives even if there were no sanctions. Now, any transfers of workers to the railways takes workers away from the military, or from food production. And any smuggling of parts for the locomotives drains the gold supply faster.
Putin's already announced he's going to pay far less to families of injured soldiers; these payments were basically keeping a lot of the impoverished regions afloat, so removing them will massively increase unrest, rioting and draft resistance.
Abkhazia just threw out the pro-Russian puppet government and Russia lacks the military force to fight back. Georgia will probably be in another civil war soon and Russia lacks the military force to get involved. At what point do the local regions notice that Russia simply lacks the force to stop them from seceding? I don't know, but mid-2025 is a good guess.
So what is Trump going to do with the increasing shell production in Scranton? Why can't the Europeans just buy it for Ukraine? The same with GMLRS and SAMs.
At his core, Trump is a transactional president whose main driver is to advance his own interests.
The best hope for Ukraine is that the likes of Waltz, Rubio et al manage to convince Trump it is in his interest to continue support to Ukraine.
I’d be curious to hear your take on Zelensky’s comments that the war will end ‘faster’ under Trump? It seems both an indictment of Biden’s approach and an attempt to tactfully massage Trump’s ego in the hope it will spur him to support Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.
Ukraine is trying very hard to convince Trump that they are happy he's president. Its all they can do considering the situation they are in--but its hardly comforting. It will be interesting to see if people who have shown no backbone recently end up growing one...
Great summary of an entirely depressing situation. Schulz is a clown who cannot even gain support domestically and seems to be looking for a Gerhard Schroeder kind of landing from Putin. Trump is tied to Putin for any kind of business or Kompromat dealings, and that includes his acolytes.
Ukraine wins if the rest of the EU and NATO take up the cause as the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, and Czechia have done.
What amazes me is the data in front of us even before the Foreign Affairs piece shows how weak Russia is. Depending on Iran for drones, NK for shell and now cannon fodder because they cannot defend Kursk Oblast. The economy is inflationary and wholly dependent on defense spending while standards of living are not much better than post Soviet 1990s in most of the Federation.
All that is needed so for somebody to have guts besides the Ukrainians and the aforementioned others to break to hollow shell and have it all collapse.
Yes. The allies of autocracy give stronger support to “this fucking terrorist Putin” than all the democracies of the world give Ukraine. Makes me queasy…
Interesting article, Neroden. I was trying to see the names on the containers. Containers are leased and holding them beyond a specified date (beyonf attivsl date)costs money in fines which iincreaes exponentially daily. This alone is costing a fortunr
Dear Prof O'Brien, could you kindly post here or in Blue Sky the link to the paper on Russia's economy in 2025? I left X and cannot access it. Thank you from now.
Thanks for this clear analysis of the bizarre goings since Trump’s victory.
Scholz’s call to Putin is pretty much in character and has more to do with shoring up support at home in the hope that the SPD will not be routed in the forthcoming elections and still be a viable partner in a future coalition with the CDU. Surprisingly for some, Scholz seems to have gained some kudos in Germany by dismissing his finance minister and bringing down his own government. Seen in this light, Ukraine is just a collateral victim of domestic politics, as it is in the US.
Putin was clearly so impressed by Scholz’s call to withdraw his army from Ukraine that he proceeded, within 24 hours, to order one of the largest rocket and drone strikes of the last few months.
On the substance of the matter, none of the simplistic solutions currently doing the rounds over the heads of the Ukrainians take account of the full situation on the battlefield. True, the Ukrainian army is suffering in the Donbas, but do any of the talking heads leaking their preferred solutions to the media stop to consider how the Kursk situation might affect negotiations when they eventually start rather than blithely considering that Russian forces will drive the Ukrainians back over the border within a few weeks?
And does anybody stop to seriously think about Ukraine’s continuing success in destroying and deterring much of the Russian Black Sea fleet and forcing what’s left of it to relocate to other, overcrowded, ports which could easily become targets for long-range missiles?
Faced with a highly complex situation which he clearly won’t be able to settle “within 24 hours” Trump will eventually have to choose between abandoning Ukraine completely (and sending a disastrous signal of weakness to the rest of the world) or facing down the bully once and for all and putting him back in his cage.
His choice will be a defining moment of the first few months of his presidency.
Ukraine is sinking the *Caspian flotilla* now. Strikes on Moscow are routine. I'm not sure how fast Russia's air defenses are getting destroyed -- but we know they stripped Kaliningrad, stripped the Far East, stripped the Finnish border, and Ukraine has kept on destroying them -- and there seem to be some pretty big holes. What are Russia's air defenses going to look like in 2 months? By then Ukraine will have even more of its homegrown long-range weapons ready. Strikes on critical Russian infrastructure will clearly increase.
The collapse of Russian railways may happen in the same time frame (it's hard to tell) -- and the North Korean supply is entirely dependent on the *most stressed* part of Russian Railways.
Combined with the ongoing economic collapse in Russia, the situation may be absolutely dire for Russia before Trump is even inaugurated. There is an outside chance Putin will already be dead by then (though I wouldn't bet on it). There is no way for Trump to prop Russia up.
The economic collapse is very real as is the railway collapse. But reality and logistics do not sell newspapers nor do reporters understand the importance of economic and logistical might. As Phillips articulates so well in HTWWW, these are the foundational aspects of war fighting, but nobody in the media pays attention to it.
The U.S. media reaction to Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI nomination has been disheartening and unserious. They are focused on Gaetz because he is such a cartoon cad & villain. Gabbard has been treated as a regrettable Trumpist gadfly, like Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. But she’s in a tier of horribles below Gaetz. It’s assumed the country has to stomach her.
Of course several columnists have correctly identified Gabbard as a national and world security nightmare. Ignatius & Josh Rogin in the WAPOST made the case. JVL at Bulwark delivered an epic rant. But these people are preaching to the converted.
Gaetz, Gabbard and Hegseth would be nightmares in hearings, IMO. I doubt the Senate would confirm any of them. But the Trumpists know this, so they are banking on recess appointments. There is a clause in the constitution that empowers the president to force a recess if the House & Senate can’t agree. I fear we are barreling towards that outcome.
I saw Chris Cuomo scoff at the notion that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian spy on the Bill Mahr show. Nobody responded that being a paid Russian agent is not the bar of acceptability; many years of advocacy for Assad & Putin is disqualification for overseeing our intelligence services. Duh. But Cuomo knows Tulsi personally; she is after all very pretty and engaging, a favorite of edgy hipsters and “free thinkers.”
This is bad. We need to avoid recess appointments to inform the public (and sleepwalking media figures) the threat that plucky Gabbard presents.
Thank you for your analyses. Americans must stand up to the Putin puppets and support Ukraine. It’s a sad time for America. This is what you get when propaganda like Fox News is citizens’ source of information.
I think it would be good for Zelensky to tour Saudi and UAE and get their support in return for help against Houthis/Iran.
It was interesting that MBS publicly stated that Gaza is now a genocide. It feels like the MBS is reminding Trump that his support will cost a lot for Trump. I think the Israel right will get their desires. Saudi is commercially and personally more important to Trump than Israel.
I also suspect that MBS doesn’t like Elon and that will also be communicated.
Saudi/UAE public support for Ukraine would shift the dynamics and there is a joint interest in disrupting the Iran/Russia axis.
Interesting idea. It certainly could rearrange some relationships. Maybe talk of Ukraine appealing for Saudi support might give Israel a little push to openly back Ukraine. If either one (Saudi or Israel) assisted Ukraine in severely punishing Iran that would be a lovely thing.
Mr. O'Brien, thank you so much for your clarity and explaining these difficult situations. I've liked, agreed and commented on many of your articles. Unfortunately, the turn of events with Trump, the Republicans, the Europeans and the total abandonment of statementship has left me unable to comment anymore. It is so discouraging. I will continue with great anticipation to read your releases and like them.
The idea of peace negotiations with the Russians is crazier than any of Trump's appointments. The Russians do not negotiate, period. They conquer. The only way to make Russians negotiate for peace is to defeat them on the battlefield. The last time ANY country was defeated by Russia and yet managed to negotiate a permanent peace agreement fully preserving its sovereignty (even if over greatly diminished territory) was in 1878. But even then the Russian troops approaching Constantinople stopped only because British battleships trained their guns on them and gently encouraged them to start negotiations instead of capturing and annexing the Ottoman capital. You have to go another half century back to find an example without such external pressure. The normal rule is that if you fail to kick Russian invaders out of your country, you become part of the Russian Empire or at least some kind of a vassal state - just ceding territory won't be enough (although it may well be part of the deal).
would be good if more people understood this before making concessions to Putin (and gaining nothing)
But alas, we denigrate history as a course of study in the US and so fail to learn from it as is so obvious with Trump’s ascendancy again.
Do you consider Finland to have been a vassal state after the Continuation War?
P.S. I appreciate the conflict was between Finland and the Soviet Union so technically didn’t involve Russia
Yes. They did not have full sovereignty. They had Soviet censorship - e.g. The Manchurian Candidate was banned in Finland. They were not allowed to join NATO or EU. They were required to have a defense plan in case of invasion from the West (and they were actually obligated to defend the USSR from an attack from that direction). They were required to return any Soviet citizen who managed to flee across the border. Etc. etc. etc. And the only reason the terms were not even worse was American pressure at the time when Stalin had much bigger fish to fry in Europe and completely depended on American shipments in his ability to conduct offensive operations. That was also the only occasion after 1878 when the Russians defeated a country but signed a lasting peace agreement and neither annexed it nor installed a puppet government.
Still, for the Ukrainians to accept the same terms as Finland would be a national suicide. The Soviets did not consider Finns the Russians (even though they are arguably more related to them than to the Ukrainians), and the censorship they imposed did not try to suppress Finnish national identity as it was not seen as inherently anti-Soviet. But the very Ukrainian national identity is viewed by the Russians as extremely anti-Russian. So any semi-permanent peace deal genuinely acceptable to Russia will require suppression of the Ukrainian national identity and promotion of the Russian one (e.g. make Russian the official language, place all Orthodox churches under the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate, censor history textbooks etc.). You can read Russian ideas about the ideal outcome here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine And yes, I've just checked - the original Russian article is STILL posted on the website of the state news agency: https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html
Appreciate your insights on this Andrew. I agree that it’s highly unlikely Putin will negotiate unless he is faced with some type of ‘defeat’ on the battlefield.
I guess the question is what does that defeat look like? For me, it seems inconceivable that Ukraine will take back all the territory it has lost. Further, NATO membership appears unlikely at the present time.
A scenario I could foresee would be some type of military ‘price tag’ that is unacceptable to Putin i.e. an end to Russia’s ability to advance on the battlefield combined with a ranged aerial campaign on Russian infrastructure/economic targets.
If this was supported by genuine security guarantees, including the presence of Western military troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peace deal it could work.
To me the mutual deterrence that held for several months in the Black Sea in terms of each side avoiding attacks on commercial shipping is evidence that Putin can be deterred if the cost is high enough to him.
Russian economy is in bad shape and deteriorating. Most importantly, it produces several times fewer tanks, IFVs and artillery barrels than Russia loses at the front. In a year or so not only economic pressure may become too hard to bear, but the military equipment may be at unacceptably low levels. So Russia may simply be unable to go on. And then Ukraine may actually be able to start taking back a lot of territory (especially if by then it has 100 or so Western combat jets and has largely suppressed Russian air defenses in Crimea and Kherson Region). I mean, the Russians can't hold the Ukrainians off with just Kalashnikovs and drones - they need armored vehicles and artillery. And yes, a ranged campaign can compound their problems. Russia also has problems with manpower. Another mobilization would not only be very unpopular, but would also aggravate already existing labor shortage (especially since it can also trigger another way of men fleeing Russia). So by 2026 Putin may be faced with a choice between very unpopular mobilization plus high inflation and a possible collapse of his left flank in Ukraine.
I agree with a lot of that, however, one of the stories of this war has been the difficulty both sides have had overcoming well manned prepared defences which makes me dubious Ukraine would be able to take back much territory.
If you look at the role armour has played it has been bit part. The gains Russia has made this year have been down to an attritional approach that has seen mass casualties that Ukraine would/should not pursue. Indeed, the introduction of North Korean troops suggests Russia won’t be able to sustain it for that long.
I’m also sceptical about the impact F-16/Mirage will have on assisting Ukraine in taking back territory. Russia still has highly effective layered air defence which will make operating near the front very difficult. The benefits of F-16 are more likely to be felt in air defence.
I don't know that Russian air defense will continue be highly effective on the western flank - that's why I mentioned it. If you look at the map, Russian held territory there looks like a peninsula almost surrounded by Ukrainian held territory and the Black Sea. That entire "peninsula" is within HIMARS range. And further back in Crimea Russian air defenses are within ATACMS and Storm Shadow range (and in fact is it constantly getting hit). And JDAMs can actually be dropped from some distance (in fact Ukraine ALREADY used JDAM-ER to hit Russia proper - there's even a video of the hit).
I don't know that any prepared defenses can hold out long against air attacks. In WWII they never did. Especially when you add ranged attacks against logistics. When (and if) the Ukrainians bring down the Kerch Bridge, the Chonhar Bridges and whatever bridges the newly constructed railroad from Mariupol to Melitopol runs over, Russian logistics in the far west will get much worse, especially if Western fighters are able to fly combat patrols and attack trucks.
Wait, you said they were not allowed to join NATO or the EU after the continuation war, but at that time there was no NATO or EU. The Finns walked a tightrope but they were not subservient to the Russians. They joined the EU in 1995
They were created soon after. And joining either was out of the question. So Finland certainly was not allowed to have independent foreign policy. Plus, as I said, there was Soviet interference in domestic affairs in the form of censorship (and especially self-censorship practiced by the Finns). Finland had absolutely the best outcome of all parts of the Russian Empire at the time of its first collapse in 1917, but it did not completely escape the Russian World until the second collapse of the Russian Empire in 1991. Ukraine may have to wait until the third one in 20??.
Your comment on the events of the late 19th century brings up the subject of the Crimean war and to my mind, how Russian ends have failed in several key instances in the past. Britain was aligned with France (yes France despite earlier animosities with the English) in their actions to stop Russia from having an open door to the Mediterranean. Military they where successful in crimping Russian ambitions on Constantinople in Crimea, but that was in retrospect not what stopped Russia, who as today, are not troubled much by attrition of forces, rather as has been speculated, the loss of finance support from other interests in Europe, Sweden and Austria in particular. This though is not the only time Russian financial support to its military adventures had to deal with reality on the ground. The Bolsheviks themselves in their successful overthrow of the provisional Russian government were aided by the financial drain of that government's support of participants to the World War I conflict (this leaves out the disastrous financial after affects of the Russo-Japanese War on imperial Russia). Closer to home, the Soviet government was not brought down by any direct military action, but the accumulated debts of the Cold War and Afghanistan “Special Military Operation”.
While historical precedent is not necessary prognosticatory, it might suggest any resolution of the current conflict in Ukraine as not ending in any peace capitulation on Ukraine’s part, but rather that given the direction Putin’s country is heading with its territorial ambitions, it will be the collapse of Russian ability to prolong the conflict that will right the ship.
Yes, Russian economy keeps deteriorating. They are already only able to continue the war thanks to huge Soviet stockpiles. But they are not endless (apart from being obsolete).
In the Guardian: "Biden urges Xi to dissuade North Korea from deepening Russian support." Yeah, that'll do it. Jesus, Joe, just fecking give the Ukrainians as much as you can before you depart, and lift the restrictions. God almighty.
Russia runs out of gold mid-2025, at which point the choices are (1) hyperinflation or (2) stop paying the soldiers. Either way, the Russian government probably gets overthrown. But I think the Russian economic collapse happens before that.
There are signs of stress all over the economy, with the railways being the most stressed. The railways are already a critical bottleneck for both war materiel and civilian food supply. In order to keep those both going, Putin would have to send lots more people into the railway (worker shortage!) and also smuggle in lots of parts (locomotive shortage!). It would be hard to replace the locomotives even if there were no sanctions. Now, any transfers of workers to the railways takes workers away from the military, or from food production. And any smuggling of parts for the locomotives drains the gold supply faster.
Putin's already announced he's going to pay far less to families of injured soldiers; these payments were basically keeping a lot of the impoverished regions afloat, so removing them will massively increase unrest, rioting and draft resistance.
Abkhazia just threw out the pro-Russian puppet government and Russia lacks the military force to fight back. Georgia will probably be in another civil war soon and Russia lacks the military force to get involved. At what point do the local regions notice that Russia simply lacks the force to stop them from seceding? I don't know, but mid-2025 is a good guess.
So what is Trump going to do with the increasing shell production in Scranton? Why can't the Europeans just buy it for Ukraine? The same with GMLRS and SAMs.
Trump has to be willing to sell. We will see
At his core, Trump is a transactional president whose main driver is to advance his own interests.
The best hope for Ukraine is that the likes of Waltz, Rubio et al manage to convince Trump it is in his interest to continue support to Ukraine.
I’d be curious to hear your take on Zelensky’s comments that the war will end ‘faster’ under Trump? It seems both an indictment of Biden’s approach and an attempt to tactfully massage Trump’s ego in the hope it will spur him to support Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.
Ukraine is trying very hard to convince Trump that they are happy he's president. Its all they can do considering the situation they are in--but its hardly comforting. It will be interesting to see if people who have shown no backbone recently end up growing one...
Great summary of an entirely depressing situation. Schulz is a clown who cannot even gain support domestically and seems to be looking for a Gerhard Schroeder kind of landing from Putin. Trump is tied to Putin for any kind of business or Kompromat dealings, and that includes his acolytes.
Ukraine wins if the rest of the EU and NATO take up the cause as the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, and Czechia have done.
What amazes me is the data in front of us even before the Foreign Affairs piece shows how weak Russia is. Depending on Iran for drones, NK for shell and now cannon fodder because they cannot defend Kursk Oblast. The economy is inflationary and wholly dependent on defense spending while standards of living are not much better than post Soviet 1990s in most of the Federation.
All that is needed so for somebody to have guts besides the Ukrainians and the aforementioned others to break to hollow shell and have it all collapse.
Yes. The allies of autocracy give stronger support to “this fucking terrorist Putin” than all the democracies of the world give Ukraine. Makes me queasy…
Russian Railways may collapse sooner than expected. https://x.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1857773132548899293
Interesting article, Neroden. I was trying to see the names on the containers. Containers are leased and holding them beyond a specified date (beyonf attivsl date)costs money in fines which iincreaes exponentially daily. This alone is costing a fortunr
Dear Prof O'Brien, could you kindly post here or in Blue Sky the link to the paper on Russia's economy in 2025? I left X and cannot access it. Thank you from now.
Just posted it on Bsky as well.
Thanks for this clear analysis of the bizarre goings since Trump’s victory.
Scholz’s call to Putin is pretty much in character and has more to do with shoring up support at home in the hope that the SPD will not be routed in the forthcoming elections and still be a viable partner in a future coalition with the CDU. Surprisingly for some, Scholz seems to have gained some kudos in Germany by dismissing his finance minister and bringing down his own government. Seen in this light, Ukraine is just a collateral victim of domestic politics, as it is in the US.
Putin was clearly so impressed by Scholz’s call to withdraw his army from Ukraine that he proceeded, within 24 hours, to order one of the largest rocket and drone strikes of the last few months.
On the substance of the matter, none of the simplistic solutions currently doing the rounds over the heads of the Ukrainians take account of the full situation on the battlefield. True, the Ukrainian army is suffering in the Donbas, but do any of the talking heads leaking their preferred solutions to the media stop to consider how the Kursk situation might affect negotiations when they eventually start rather than blithely considering that Russian forces will drive the Ukrainians back over the border within a few weeks?
And does anybody stop to seriously think about Ukraine’s continuing success in destroying and deterring much of the Russian Black Sea fleet and forcing what’s left of it to relocate to other, overcrowded, ports which could easily become targets for long-range missiles?
Faced with a highly complex situation which he clearly won’t be able to settle “within 24 hours” Trump will eventually have to choose between abandoning Ukraine completely (and sending a disastrous signal of weakness to the rest of the world) or facing down the bully once and for all and putting him back in his cage.
His choice will be a defining moment of the first few months of his presidency.
Ukraine is sinking the *Caspian flotilla* now. Strikes on Moscow are routine. I'm not sure how fast Russia's air defenses are getting destroyed -- but we know they stripped Kaliningrad, stripped the Far East, stripped the Finnish border, and Ukraine has kept on destroying them -- and there seem to be some pretty big holes. What are Russia's air defenses going to look like in 2 months? By then Ukraine will have even more of its homegrown long-range weapons ready. Strikes on critical Russian infrastructure will clearly increase.
The collapse of Russian railways may happen in the same time frame (it's hard to tell) -- and the North Korean supply is entirely dependent on the *most stressed* part of Russian Railways.
Combined with the ongoing economic collapse in Russia, the situation may be absolutely dire for Russia before Trump is even inaugurated. There is an outside chance Putin will already be dead by then (though I wouldn't bet on it). There is no way for Trump to prop Russia up.
The economic collapse is very real as is the railway collapse. But reality and logistics do not sell newspapers nor do reporters understand the importance of economic and logistical might. As Phillips articulates so well in HTWWW, these are the foundational aspects of war fighting, but nobody in the media pays attention to it.
I think the time has come to leave musks xitter.
It’s happening.
The U.S. media reaction to Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI nomination has been disheartening and unserious. They are focused on Gaetz because he is such a cartoon cad & villain. Gabbard has been treated as a regrettable Trumpist gadfly, like Kristi Noem or Elise Stefanik. But she’s in a tier of horribles below Gaetz. It’s assumed the country has to stomach her.
Of course several columnists have correctly identified Gabbard as a national and world security nightmare. Ignatius & Josh Rogin in the WAPOST made the case. JVL at Bulwark delivered an epic rant. But these people are preaching to the converted.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/tulsi-gabbard-russian-asset-or-dupe
Gaetz, Gabbard and Hegseth would be nightmares in hearings, IMO. I doubt the Senate would confirm any of them. But the Trumpists know this, so they are banking on recess appointments. There is a clause in the constitution that empowers the president to force a recess if the House & Senate can’t agree. I fear we are barreling towards that outcome.
I saw Chris Cuomo scoff at the notion that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian spy on the Bill Mahr show. Nobody responded that being a paid Russian agent is not the bar of acceptability; many years of advocacy for Assad & Putin is disqualification for overseeing our intelligence services. Duh. But Cuomo knows Tulsi personally; she is after all very pretty and engaging, a favorite of edgy hipsters and “free thinkers.”
This is bad. We need to avoid recess appointments to inform the public (and sleepwalking media figures) the threat that plucky Gabbard presents.
Thank you for your analyses. Americans must stand up to the Putin puppets and support Ukraine. It’s a sad time for America. This is what you get when propaganda like Fox News is citizens’ source of information.
More Russian economic collapse analysis https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1857118763818316054.html
Seems like all that’s missing is an external (“exogenous”) shock to push things over the edge. Needs a catalyst.
I think it would be good for Zelensky to tour Saudi and UAE and get their support in return for help against Houthis/Iran.
It was interesting that MBS publicly stated that Gaza is now a genocide. It feels like the MBS is reminding Trump that his support will cost a lot for Trump. I think the Israel right will get their desires. Saudi is commercially and personally more important to Trump than Israel.
I also suspect that MBS doesn’t like Elon and that will also be communicated.
Saudi/UAE public support for Ukraine would shift the dynamics and there is a joint interest in disrupting the Iran/Russia axis.
Interesting idea. It certainly could rearrange some relationships. Maybe talk of Ukraine appealing for Saudi support might give Israel a little push to openly back Ukraine. If either one (Saudi or Israel) assisted Ukraine in severely punishing Iran that would be a lovely thing.
Mr. O'Brien, thank you so much for your clarity and explaining these difficult situations. I've liked, agreed and commented on many of your articles. Unfortunately, the turn of events with Trump, the Republicans, the Europeans and the total abandonment of statementship has left me unable to comment anymore. It is so discouraging. I will continue with great anticipation to read your releases and like them.
I wish this were't so late in the Biden administration's game. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/17/ukraine-russia-north-korea-atacms/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert