Agree, but I think much of what is in there is probably true, even though it’s most likely been arrived at by supposition rather than any meaningful intelligence.
There will be backchannel discussions going on, and I’m sure that the powers that be in the US think that the total annihilation of Russia carries more risks than potential benefits. There will also be plenty of people near the seat of power in Russia who thought this was a terrible idea but now think Russia can’t just walk away. And there will have to be some dialogue between the parties after this is all over. Like there nearly always is. And the suggestion the Putin is the overwhelming obstacle to a resolution is also almost certainly correct.
I don’t agree that it’s almost inevitable that Russia will use nukes if they lose Crimea, but otherwise the thrust of what’s in there strikes me as on the money.
The issue is, as the article suggests, Putin (and those immediately around him). There is simply no point in entering into dialogue with them about settlement at this stage and to do so would simply sow the seeds for greater problems in the future. They simply won’t keep to anything they say they will, as long as they think they can get away with it, and they cannot be seen to profit from this egregious act of aggression.
That is the bottom line.