Estonia to disconnect from the Russian-run electricity network on Saturday

1. It clearly strengthened NATO, with Finland and Sweden joining and member nations increasing military spending;

2. It revealed Russia's military as a paper tiger and exposed the rampant corruption;

3. It became apparent that neither Ukraine nor Russia could "win" militarily (whatever that means) after 1-2 years;

4. Barring serious escalation, it's now a war of attrition. Ukraine is running out of people to conscript. But Russia is hurting too. Bringing in North Korean troops is clearly a measure to avoid or delay another mobilization;

5. Thus far, the Russian economy has withstood sanctions probably better than anyone expected;

6. Russia has done long-term damage to their energy exports regardless of the outcome. Europe won't be keen to return to a dependence on Russian natural gas;

7. The most likely outcome for awhile seems to be that the West will eventually get bored and there'll be a negotiated settlement that'll cede Ukrainina territory to Russia, creating a land bridge to Crimea and guarantee a Russian port in the Black Sea (IMHO);

8. There clearly has been internal strife in Russia. Oligarchs are dying in car crashes an dfalling out of windows at an alarming rate. And this is beyond the one very public and short-lived coup attempt;

9. If Ukraine cedes territory to Russia, I very much suspect Zollensky will have to flee the country and it will go hard right, kinda like Hungary;

10. Less talked about is Asaad falling in Syria but it's significant as this was a port for the Russian navy in the Meditaranean. Russia had been forced to use this for repairs after Ukrainian missile and drone attacks on their Black Sea fleet. That is a serious loss;

11. Many like to paint Trump as a Putin patsy, even an asset. The truth seems to be far more complicated. For example, Trump had been banging the drum about the dangers of Nordstream 1 and 2 and European dependence on Russian natural gas back in 2017-2018. In fact, Germany conceded to pressure by the first Trump administration to build an LNG port because of this threat. Those aren't pro-Russian moves.

12. As much as Trump may want to end the conflict, there will be significant resitance to this because it's hugely profitable to the military-industrial complex. Fun fact: spending in Afghanistan in the last year was pretty much the amount spent on military aid to Ukraine in the firs tyear.

13. Ukraine is and always was too large to occupy so either that was never the goal or Putin didn't listen to his generals. I've seen estimates that you'd need a standing army of 500,000+ to occupy a country the size of Ukraine and it would be a quagmire like 1980s Afghanistan was for the Soviets;

14. So either the goal had to be gaining territory, installing a puppet regime (like Lukashenko previously) and/or it was ideological (the so-called "Duganist" argument).

15. Between China and India there will always be a market for Russian energy exports.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-disban...

Furthermore, there is a clear danger that Trump will make peace in Ukraine (without consulting either the EU or Ukraine) and have the EU pay for the reconstruction. And he'll possible resume friendship with Russia after the EU-Russia relationships have been ruined.

The EU should stop playing the games of the US, which change every four years. It should develop its own foreign policy and stop being taken advantage of. Rule #1: Never get involved in a war that is promoted by the US. All "friends" of the US have been screwed over in various proxy wars. Kissinger even said "to be a friend of the US is fatal".

Cost of electricity in Estonia: $0.26

Painful.