Well, for nearly a decade before hostilities began, then immediately after they began, and then again a few months after they began. Now that the tide is turning in Russia's favor, Ukraine has little to leverage as Russia already controls the east, Crimea and soon the entire coast. Plus, Russia is acquiring valuable intelligence about US…
Well, for nearly a decade before hostilities began, then immediately after they began, and then again a few months after they began. Now that the tide is turning in Russia's favor, Ukraine has little to leverage as Russia already controls the east, Crimea and soon the entire coast. Plus, Russia is acquiring valuable intelligence about US/NATO systems, strategies and tactics.
Of course, Russia has long been on the record warning that Ukraine's admission to NATO would provoke an immediate military response. Not too unlike what one might imagine the USA's response would be if, say, Russia planned to install a military-missile base in Cuba. Which is to say, it was an utterly predictable response by Russia and one NATO did nothing to prevent. Based on current commentary from political and military leaders, this war is 'a great investment' for the US. Let that sink in.
Famously, former US Russia ambassador/now head of CIA William Burns sent a internal memo ('Nyet means nyet') stating that across the entire political spectrum of Russian leadership, any further eastward incursion of NATO, particularly into Ukraine, would be perceived as an existential threat to Russia's security and would be dealt with as such.
Right up to the commencement of hostilities, Russia sought assurances from the US/NATO that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO to prevent war. (Why bother, one might ask, when all previous assurances were honored in the breach, e.g. from James Baker's 'not one inch eastward' up to the the Minsk Agreement, which Angela Merkel admitted was merely a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to prepare for war)
At the outset, Russia clearly miscalculated and thought Ukraine would sue for peace soon after being invaded by what was a modest sized Russian attack force, and certainly one incapable of defeating and occupying all of Ukraine. Even then, there is data indicating that Zalensky was open to negotiating, but the Azov nationalists were vehemently/violently opposed and he punted.
A few months later, peace efforts by Erdogan in Turkey led to a tacit agreement between Russia/Ukraine that was to be fleshed out, but BoJo intervened with Zalensky informing him that the US/NATO would not go along with any peace deal with Russia.
Now it seems clear that the US/NATO severely underestimated Russia's military staying power, especially in light of the uncertainties stemming from a potentially large war in the middle east. For its part, NATO leadership are looking increasingly like impotent bloviators while Russia has fully converted to a wartime economy and appears quite content with a war of attrition.
Well, for nearly a decade before hostilities began, then immediately after they began, and then again a few months after they began. Now that the tide is turning in Russia's favor, Ukraine has little to leverage as Russia already controls the east, Crimea and soon the entire coast. Plus, Russia is acquiring valuable intelligence about US/NATO systems, strategies and tactics.
Of course, Russia has long been on the record warning that Ukraine's admission to NATO would provoke an immediate military response. Not too unlike what one might imagine the USA's response would be if, say, Russia planned to install a military-missile base in Cuba. Which is to say, it was an utterly predictable response by Russia and one NATO did nothing to prevent. Based on current commentary from political and military leaders, this war is 'a great investment' for the US. Let that sink in.
Famously, former US Russia ambassador/now head of CIA William Burns sent a internal memo ('Nyet means nyet') stating that across the entire political spectrum of Russian leadership, any further eastward incursion of NATO, particularly into Ukraine, would be perceived as an existential threat to Russia's security and would be dealt with as such.
Right up to the commencement of hostilities, Russia sought assurances from the US/NATO that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO to prevent war. (Why bother, one might ask, when all previous assurances were honored in the breach, e.g. from James Baker's 'not one inch eastward' up to the the Minsk Agreement, which Angela Merkel admitted was merely a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to prepare for war)
At the outset, Russia clearly miscalculated and thought Ukraine would sue for peace soon after being invaded by what was a modest sized Russian attack force, and certainly one incapable of defeating and occupying all of Ukraine. Even then, there is data indicating that Zalensky was open to negotiating, but the Azov nationalists were vehemently/violently opposed and he punted.
A few months later, peace efforts by Erdogan in Turkey led to a tacit agreement between Russia/Ukraine that was to be fleshed out, but BoJo intervened with Zalensky informing him that the US/NATO would not go along with any peace deal with Russia.
https://intellinews.com/former-german-leader-schroeder-divulges-more-detail-on-thwarted-russia-ukraine-peace-deal-297990/?source=russia.
Now it seems clear that the US/NATO severely underestimated Russia's military staying power, especially in light of the uncertainties stemming from a potentially large war in the middle east. For its part, NATO leadership are looking increasingly like impotent bloviators while Russia has fully converted to a wartime economy and appears quite content with a war of attrition.