One, could Russia build a defensive line on the East bank of the Dneiper River and be satisfied with that?
Two, do you honestly believe that Europe (NATO) could ever defeat Russia with boots on the ground, without the USA involvement?
A Russia looks south from Moscow today and sees Ukraine a few hundred miles to the south. If the river is the new boundary, as eastern Ukraine today is chock full of Russians, that person would see Russia to the south.
To the end of his days, Andrew Jackson was infuriated by people who talked derisively about the Battle of New Orleans, fought after the treaty had been signed. He said, Britain did not rise to world dominance by obeying treaties not in its favor. If they weren't defeated, they could have retained control of the Mississippi, quickly building a series of forts on the western side. They that would have been the border of the United States.
The war was an impasse to that point. Washington had been burned. but Baltimore saved itself at Fort McHenry, much to Francis Scott Key's delight. Most of the British sympathisizers had gone north to Canada. Canada had defended itself from zealous Americans. New orleans was necessary to show the British that their war making was obsolete and the US could kick the shit out of them. After NOLA, there were no more attempts to re-take America militarily.
For all I know, Russia would more than satisfied with that. Whether they can actually pull that off is another matter. I'm of the opinion that wherever the boundary is, it will be the position from which constant artillery barrages and drone swarms will be launched from the Ukrainian side.
Couple questions.
One, could Russia build a defensive line on the East bank of the Dneiper River and be satisfied with that?
Two, do you honestly believe that Europe (NATO) could ever defeat Russia with boots on the ground, without the USA involvement?
A Russia looks south from Moscow today and sees Ukraine a few hundred miles to the south. If the river is the new boundary, as eastern Ukraine today is chock full of Russians, that person would see Russia to the south.
To the end of his days, Andrew Jackson was infuriated by people who talked derisively about the Battle of New Orleans, fought after the treaty had been signed. He said, Britain did not rise to world dominance by obeying treaties not in its favor. If they weren't defeated, they could have retained control of the Mississippi, quickly building a series of forts on the western side. They that would have been the border of the United States.
The war was an impasse to that point. Washington had been burned. but Baltimore saved itself at Fort McHenry, much to Francis Scott Key's delight. Most of the British sympathisizers had gone north to Canada. Canada had defended itself from zealous Americans. New orleans was necessary to show the British that their war making was obsolete and the US could kick the shit out of them. After NOLA, there were no more attempts to re-take America militarily.
For all I know, Russia would more than satisfied with that. Whether they can actually pull that off is another matter. I'm of the opinion that wherever the boundary is, it will be the position from which constant artillery barrages and drone swarms will be launched from the Ukrainian side.
You are right, Ukraine has been bombarding the Russian separatists in the Donbas since 2014.
It'd make a very fine buffer zone.