By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to continued Russian attacks despite a purported 30-day pause, President Zelensky announced Ukraine will compile a list of sites Russia must stop targeting, presenting it to international partners. This follows a Russian assault on Ukrainian infrastructure on March 19, contradicting Putin’s claim to have ordered a halt to such attacks. Zelensky emphasized the need for US monitoring of Russia’s compliance and anticipates a discussion with President Trump regarding his conversation with Putin. Ukraine’s strategy is predicated on reciprocal restraint: cessation of attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure should result in a halt to Ukrainian attacks on Russian targets.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s announcement that it will compile a list of energy sites Russia must stop attacking presents a complex strategic maneuver within the ongoing conflict. The idea itself sparks a multitude of questions and interpretations. At first glance, it seems counterintuitive; why would a nation facing relentless attacks on its critical infrastructure willingly provide a list of targets to its adversary? It certainly seems like offering a convenient roadmap to further destruction.
The inherent risk is undeniable. Providing a list, even if carefully curated, could potentially lead to increased targeting of those specific sites. Russia’s history of disregarding international norms and agreements casts a long shadow over the initiative. There’s a very real possibility that the list, far from providing protection, might simply become a prioritized hit list for Russian forces. Some might even consider it a form of appeasement, a concession that plays into Russia’s hands.
However, the strategy might be more nuanced than a simple act of surrender. The move could be seen as a bold attempt to establish a verifiable line in the sand. By publicly identifying specific targets and demanding Russia cease attacks on them, Ukraine creates a clear metric for evaluating Russian compliance. Any subsequent attacks on listed sites would serve as unambiguous evidence of Russian aggression and provide concrete grounds for international condemnation. It is a way to clearly demonstrate Russian violations of any potential ceasefire, making their actions undeniably blatant in the eyes of the world.
The potential for reverse psychology also plays a significant role. By publicly naming these sites, Ukraine might be subtly influencing Russia’s targeting strategies. The very act of listing these sites could cause Russia to overthink their targeting, potentially leading them to shift their attention to other, less publicized areas. Similarly, Ukraine might be strategically including decoy targets, less crucial sites disguised as critical infrastructure, thereby diverting resources and weakening Russia’s offensive capabilities.
Another intriguing aspect is the potential for deception. Perhaps some of the sites included on the list are actually derelict or non-operational, allowing Ukraine to track Russian intelligence and resource allocation while potentially wasting some of Russia’s precious munitions. It’s a gamble, of course, but a gamble with the potential to gain valuable intelligence about Russia’s capabilities and intentions. This also highlights a key aspect – the assumption that Russia has already located and identified the majority of Ukraine’s crucial energy infrastructure, a fact that makes the list, in some senses, somewhat redundant.
The proposal further underlines the disparity between rhetoric and reality. Calls for an all-out cessation of attacks on energy infrastructure seem logical but appear to be consistently ignored by Russia. This creates a dynamic where the act of specifying targets could, ironically, represent a step towards de-escalation, if only by providing a mechanism to track and expose blatant violations of any agreements.
Despite the evident risks, the initiative likely stems from a belief that the international community will hold Russia accountable for its actions. The public nature of the list ensures transparency, and any subsequent Russian attacks would be difficult to dismiss as accidental or unintentional. This gamble rests heavily on the assumption that international pressure can influence Russia’s behavior, a rather precarious assumption given the history of this conflict.
Furthermore, the act of creating this list could be seen as a form of preparatory action. It could be seen as a preemptive step, aiming to facilitate future negotiations or ceasefires by creating a framework for verifiable compliance. The list could be viewed as an attempt to provide a basis for future negotiations, with a possibility to use it to demonstrate any instances of Russian breaches. This could facilitate future discussions around terms of a ceasefire.
Ultimately, the strategy is multifaceted and high-stakes. It’s a calculated risk that balances the potential for further damage with the opportunity to expose Russian aggression, gather intelligence, and potentially influence the course of the war. Whether it succeeds or fails will depend heavily on the international response and the unpredictable actions of Russia. But one thing is certain: the mere announcement itself serves as a testament to Ukraine’s resilience and strategic thinking in the face of overwhelming adversity.