Frozen colnflict. we are in basically an attrition stage of the fight in eastern ukraine. i think that s an important term because it does not mean stalemate in a way that ends the fighting, right? the russians are continuing to try to push forward. they re not having much success in part because they have not recovered from their initial failures in this war to actually marshal a coherent operational, you know, plan. whereas the ukrainians are actually beginning to gain some momentum in a counteroffensive and are able to stitch together some of these tactical attacks into what could be a wider campaign. does a putin who is cornered and not making the gains he wanted at the speed he wanted and in effect, losing in your view, is he more likely to take a catastrophic step like the use, for instance, of a battlefield nuclear weapon? it s an important question and this is where the nato unity ask deterrence really comes into the play. i think the fact that we haven t seen putin try y
Allegedly intended to do from the beginning, but clearly in reality it is a response to ukrainian gains and significant, significant russian losses. what happens from now on remains to be seen. i think the war now entering into more of an attrition stage where we re going to be seeing minimal gains, but still significant humanitarian costs. why, and this is kind of been i ve been curious about this for a while, the russians are fully able to launch missiles from russian territory into ukraine. why have they not done more to attack the capital itself? why haven t they bombarded kyiv? that s a good question. i think they were not prepared for this operation at all. and the strategy that they had from the beginning when they thought that they were just going to march into the capital