Fabio Manganiello on Nostr: npub1zvax3…ue2q5 A very good analysis, but it misses a potentially important ...

npub1zvax3r7j4smpxcrnxlznc5yv2x26e5rpuutmxssxwevp2fr8wlwqxue2q5 (npub1zva…e2q5) A very good analysis, but it misses a potentially important detail.

Ukraine is currently the country with the highest number of landmines in the world. Before retreating to their current defense positions in the south-east of the country, the Russian forces have really made sure that the Ukrainian army would have had a hard time going after them.

This leads to an important variable that is probably missing in your analysis: under which territorial agreements should a Ukrainian victory happen?

Giving Ukraine back all of the land it had before the war (including Crimea) probably excludes the short war scenario. That's because many of the Russian-occupied territories are already undergoing Moscow's notorious "Russification" process, and a big firewall of landmines sits between them and any potential form of liberation.

I agree with you that we can definitely donate more tanks and heavy armor to propel a powerful counter-offensive, but many of the tanks we have are vulnerable to anti-tanks mines like the PMA-2 - which can blow up a whole tank and, because it uses a minimal amount of metal, it's often hard to spot with a metal detector too.

We should definitely donate more anti-mining advanced equipment that minimizes the risk for human operators: that's the best way we currently have to speed up the counter-offensive. And, even with the most advanced equipment, demining the south-east of the country will still be a painfully slow and gruesome operation that may take many years (ask Yugoslavia), because that's what the big Russian coward has decided it should be.

Plus, there's the Zaporizhzhia elephant in the room: right now the Russian troops hold the biggest nuclear plant in Europe as a hostage. How do we deal with that? Make Zaporizhzhia a small Russian exclave until all the occupiers perish? Or try and send the tanks and risk a nuclear apocalypse? Or force Putin to the table, get a deal with him, just for him to blow up the reactor the next day like he's done with Prigozhin's airplane?

Ending the war fast, in your analysis, would necessarily mean to push a powerful tank-led counter-offensive to take any of the low-hanging fruits, force Russia to the negotiating table, and making territorial concessions for the territories that realistically can't be liberated fast - and not only because of military arithmetics. That would really send the wrong signal IMHO. It would send the signal that a bully can just push hard enough, take a big nuclear plant or a dam a hostage, fill the land with thousands of mines, and anything on the other side automatically ends up belonging to him. That even a defeat can end up with some territorial gains that he can sponsor at home. Putin, if wounded but not killed, will just try his luck again.

I would love to see a quick victory for Ukraine. But my realpolitik sense tells me that the only way to get a full victory for democracy is to make sure that the bear remains completely toothless for decades or centuries to come, or he'll bite again.