In the scenario of a Russian withdrawal after extensive but not fatal attrition they'd probably have to give something up. From what I've heard the Russians can't politically stand to lose Crimea, at the very least.
Is is possible they're maintaining secondary offensives in the hopes that Russia will bungle one of them, like we've seen happen before?
I think the idea is that Russia will withdraw to more defensible positions and then the scenario is going to play out all over again. Russia withdrawing from somewhere, after all, doesn't mean that Ukraine has to stop pressuring.
And it's Putin who can't afford to lose Crimea. It has a special symbolic place in the Russian imperial narrative, sure, but giving it up might also be a welcome symbol in a turn away from imperialism. Maybe even nationalists will adopt that kind of stance, "Better lose Crimea than Siberia" kind of thinking. But all that's very speculative, it could go a gazillion of ways and I doubt Ukraine cares terribly much in the present moment where exactly the chips will fall.
No, I think outright resolution is the goal here. There's no reason to cede territory if they don't have to and aren't guaranteed peace; Ukraine is a big flat place with very little in the way of naturally defensible areas.
but giving it up might also be a welcome symbol in a turn away from imperialism.
Sorry to contradict you again, but nobody (significant) really wants to turn away from imperialism at this point. Navalny just wants a different imperialism, яблоко (the liberal, pro-Western party) is fairly irrelevant.
It appears he's a journalist who has been living in the West since the early 'oghts, so not a significant person in internal Russian politics.
One becomes a significant person in politics by writing things like this. This is a Russian politician who is saying the things you want. Was only trying to help make sure you are aware.
Oh, okay. I do know that not all Russians buy in. Just the vast majority (for now, most people aren't that ideological).
You're right, it's kind of impossible to rule over a territory as large, populated by tribes as diverse as Russia, without some kind of iron fisted imperialism.
Chinese history under dynasties of brutal emperors, and now the brutal Chinese Communist Party, is also a testament to that.
I'd personally prefer to have Russia's internal security, i.e. their internal occupying forces, weakened enough by being trashed in Ukraine for multiple ethnic republics to break off and chart their own path.
Navalny's like the Emmanuel Goldstein character in 1984: Demonized token opposition who's just ineffective enough to let live. I know I know, they tried to poison him even...
This is as opposed to Prigozhin, who was immediately assassinated on showing some worthwhile opposition.
I'm much more optimistic about democracy coexisting with diversity than you, but yeah, it doesn't look possible in the short term in Russia.
it's Putin who can't afford to lose Crimea
Putin can't really afford to lose any of the annexed territories.
Yes, we used to call it the devil's choice or Sophie's choice. If you can maintain pressure on multiple locations while your enemy struggles then they will be forced to give up some places as they prioritize their defenses. It's also why offense is generally seen as better war fighting than defense. If I can get you reacting to me then all I have to do is wait for you to react wrongly or take some bait I left out. Then I can apply a massive amount of pressure to a small area of the front line.
This has already happened multiple times and the only reason the Ukrainians are only making limited headway is the extra deep minefields that can't be breached quickly.
Oh, so that couldn't really happen with the mine fields around. Then yeah, I see why the US doesn't get their strategy.
In the scenario of a Russian withdrawal after extensive but not fatal attrition they'd probably have to give something up. From what I've heard the Russians can't politically stand to lose Crimea, at the very least.
Is is possible they're maintaining secondary offensives in the hopes that Russia will bungle one of them, like we've seen happen before?
I think the idea is that Russia will withdraw to more defensible positions and then the scenario is going to play out all over again. Russia withdrawing from somewhere, after all, doesn't mean that Ukraine has to stop pressuring.
And it's Putin who can't afford to lose Crimea. It has a special symbolic place in the Russian imperial narrative, sure, but giving it up might also be a welcome symbol in a turn away from imperialism. Maybe even nationalists will adopt that kind of stance, "Better lose Crimea than Siberia" kind of thinking. But all that's very speculative, it could go a gazillion of ways and I doubt Ukraine cares terribly much in the present moment where exactly the chips will fall.
No, I think outright resolution is the goal here. There's no reason to cede territory if they don't have to and aren't guaranteed peace; Ukraine is a big flat place with very little in the way of naturally defensible areas.
Sorry to contradict you again, but nobody (significant) really wants to turn away from imperialism at this point. Navalny just wants a different imperialism, яблоко (the liberal, pro-Western party) is fairly irrelevant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/11/russia-post-putin-democracy-window-nuremberg-lustration/
Vladimir Kara-Murza is.
It appears he's a journalist who has been living in the West since the early 'oghts, so not a significant person in internal Russian politics.
One becomes a significant person in politics by writing things like this. This is a Russian politician who is saying the things you want. Was only trying to help make sure you are aware.
Oh, okay. I do know that not all Russians buy in. Just the vast majority (for now, most people aren't that ideological).
You're right, it's kind of impossible to rule over a territory as large, populated by tribes as diverse as Russia, without some kind of iron fisted imperialism.
Chinese history under dynasties of brutal emperors, and now the brutal Chinese Communist Party, is also a testament to that.
I'd personally prefer to have Russia's internal security, i.e. their internal occupying forces, weakened enough by being trashed in Ukraine for multiple ethnic republics to break off and chart their own path.
Navalny's like the Emmanuel Goldstein character in 1984: Demonized token opposition who's just ineffective enough to let live. I know I know, they tried to poison him even...
This is as opposed to Prigozhin, who was immediately assassinated on showing some worthwhile opposition.
I'm much more optimistic about democracy coexisting with diversity than you, but yeah, it doesn't look possible in the short term in Russia.
Putin can't really afford to lose any of the annexed territories.
Yes, we used to call it the devil's choice or Sophie's choice. If you can maintain pressure on multiple locations while your enemy struggles then they will be forced to give up some places as they prioritize their defenses. It's also why offense is generally seen as better war fighting than defense. If I can get you reacting to me then all I have to do is wait for you to react wrongly or take some bait I left out. Then I can apply a massive amount of pressure to a small area of the front line.
This has already happened multiple times and the only reason the Ukrainians are only making limited headway is the extra deep minefields that can't be breached quickly.
Oh, so that couldn't really happen with the mine fields around. Then yeah, I see why the US doesn't get their strategy.