Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[TMDaines]

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

You think if they occupied the whole of Ukraine, Putin would have settled for that?!

 

[Skåre Willoch]

Russia take capital??? Maybe, but I consider it unlikely. Sarajevo was sieged for almost four years. If there are supplies coming in the city, it can defend almost indefinitely. Plus Kiev is HUUGE. Encircling it would be very hard, taking even harder. Even then, breaches of encirclement to provide supplies are possible. Note, that as the war goes on, Ukrainian manpower will grow. They are in full mobilization, but it takes time. Foreign fighter will keep coming.

Russian manpower will get worse and they can not enter total war and full mobilization (which is what Ukraine will be doing), as it would cause unrest in the country. As the Russian army is bogged down in Ukraine, they will have to divert resources. If they withdraw from Syria, Assad might fall. They need to keep resource in the country to prevent unrest and rebellion. As economy collapses, you can bet that Dagestan and Tatarstan will have ideas about independence, Chechens likely too. Who knows who else. If the war keeps long enough, Russia might end up losing their own territory.

Also while Russian economy and war effort collapses under these sanctions, Ukraine will be propped by the west. Putin is right in one thing, these sanctions are a declaration of war. He isn't fighting just Ukraine, he is fighting whole western world. Ukraine is just a proxy. Unless China bails him out (which I don't see as they will want to stay neutral) he can't keep this up. He needs to finish this and quickly. But I don't see how.

Unfortunately, war toll will be heavy on all of us and it will fall hardest on Ukraine.

Sure, which is why I said takes the capital and/or ups the ante in regards to what weapons are in play. You can't take the city? Make the city unlivable.

The rest of your points are all fair, but I still don't think Putin will back down with increased pressure. I think he'll just escalate further. Anything to save face, even if that means taking on all of Europe head on. (I also think that'll be his downfall. I mentioned earlier that I believe his days are numbered as the Russian head of state, with the oligarchs (and if given time, potentially the people) turning on him.)

 

[TMDaines]

In some countries not throwing your people into the meat grinder might be seen as a win. Although when that meat grinder is entirely of your own making that may change things.

You make this sound like the difference between living in modern-day France or Germany, or a Britain remaining in the EU or post-Brexit.

It amazes me that we see what is happening in Russia, to people like @harms, and people are so willing to lop off large bits of Ukraine and the people who live there, subjecting them to that rule.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

What more effective weapons though? The strategic bombers that can carry more payload but are needed in case they want to do any long-range strikes against NATO or China in a potential conflict? Cluster munitions that are devastating to cities, but whose ideal target are concentrations of enemy military formations? Again, I don't know if it is the case or what they have or don't have in reserve, I just mean that it's wrong to assume that they necessarily have a lot more available and that they're willing to use in this instance.

I used "effective/brutal" to clarify what kind of weapons I meant. More destructive ones. Thermobaric, "Father of All Bombs", carpet bombing. The works. You can stay, you can fight, but the city will look more and more like Aleppo and Groznyj.

But as you, I don't know about their reserves or willingness to escalate either, or if they even have the ability to do so. They might just run out of ammo and call it a day.

 

[MadMike]

Crimea, LNR and DNR with NATO keeping it's nose out.

I'm not sure, I don't believe that was their target. Crimea was de facto Russia anyway, and LDR/DNR was partly under their control too. I don't think they started the war for that.

I think they started the war to topple the Ukrainian govt and create a puppet state like Belarus. Which would also cover the non-EU/non-NATO part. I reckon failing that they wanted the coastline (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) in order to have a gas corridor to Transnistria and Europe that doesn't go through sovereign Ukraine, solidifying their hold on the Black Sea too. Hence the big push from the South.

I think accepting a sovereign Ukraine that also allows the aforementioned regions (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) to remain with Ukraine is them settling at less than their ideal targets. The problem is that a deal with no bloc membership, does not safeguard Ukraine from future Russian incursions and therefore is unacceptable to the former. Russian security guarantees, rightfully, mean absolutely nothing to Ukrainians right now.

 

[Maagge]

You make this sound like the difference between living in modern-day France or Germany, or a Britain remaining in the EU or post-Brexit.

It amazes me that we see what is happening in Russia, to people like @harms, and people are so willing to lop off large bits of Ukraine and the people who live there, subjecting them to that rule.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting Ukraine should give in to Russian demands for Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. Quite the opposite.

 

[Fearless]

I'm not sure, I don't believe that was their target. Crimea was de facto Russia anyway, and LDR/DNR was partly under their control too. I don't think they started the war for that.

I think they started the war to topple the Ukrainian govt and create a puppet state like Belarus. Which would also cover the non-EU/non-NATO part. I reckon failing that they wanted the coastline (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) in order to have a gas corridor to Transnistria and Europe that doesn't go through sovereign Ukraine. Hence the big push on the South.

I think accepting a sovereign Ukraine that allows the aforementioned regions (Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson) to remain with Ukraine is them settling at less than their ideal targets. The problem is that a deal with no bloc membership, does not safeguard Ukraine from future Russian incursions and therefore is unacceptable. Russian guarantees don't mean anything.

Western guarantees mean even less. I actually wonder even if NATO would bother fighting Russia even if Ukraine were already members.

Our ultimate surrender to the Taliban is not disconnected to Putin's (over) confidence.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

I am pretty sure the Russians can take most of the Ukrainian cities. The question is whether the russiana can hold the cities.
They will fail as they will need more like 500,000 russian troops to hold the major cities and part of the country. Otherwise Russian bodybags will be the tool that drowns the Russians .

As mentioned before, if he can't take the cities, I don't think Putin will think twice about trying to just destroy them completely.

But will he be able to do that? They don't appear to be able to resupply their front line, most usable roads are more or less blocked by stuck Russian convoys and the Ukrainian air defense is still working. It is a recipe for disaster for the Russians, the longer this takes, the more ressources they'll lose.

I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
But what (I think) I know, is that Russia have more powerful bombs in their arsenal. Plenty of them. And I don't think Putin will back down. So I think the possibility is definitely there. Sadly.

 

[MadMike]

Western guarantees mean even less. I actually wonder even if NATO would bother fighting Russia even if Ukraine were already members.

Our ultimate surrender to the Taliban is not disconnected to Putin's (over) confidence.

To you maybe. They seem to matter to the Ukrainians seeking them. Also Afghanistan and a NATOic Ukraine would be vastly different. The former was not a NATO member and their citizens mostly saw Westerners as outsiders. Ukrainians (ethnic ones at least) seem to overwhelmingly want to be part of the West and are fighting for it, rather than shrugging their shoulders and awaiting take over. Abandoning a NATO member would mean the alliance collapsing. The stakes are much higher than they were in Afghanistan and the situation different.

If Putin made a connection between the two, it's him who's miscalculated.

 

[TMDaines]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not suggesting Ukraine should give in to Russian demands for Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. Quite the opposite.

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting Ukraine is the one throwing people into the meat grinder, due to not being willing to send the whole of Donbas into Putin’s dictatorship.

 

[11101]

Sure, which is why I said takes the capital and/or ups the ante in regards to what weapons are in play. You can't take the city? Make the city unlivable.

A lot of that requires shock and awe tactics and Russia has missed the boat with that. Ukrainians have dug in and shown their resilience. They will be a lot harder to break down from now on.

Russia can level Kyiv but all that artillery has limited range of about 20-30km. Zelensky has already suggested they start to push out and launch counter attacks, the field artillery will be well within striking distance if they do. Russia will not have free reign to bombard the cities.

 

[TwoSheds]

But do you think Putin will give up if he runs low on ammo, or do you think he'll switch to more effective/brutal weapons and escalate further?
I think Putin is as likely to back down as Ukraine are. If/when he is forced to make some changes for financial/logistical reasons, I don't think those changes will be in the direction of backing down. I think it will be in the direction of ramping up the pressure.

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

A lot of that requires shock and awe tactics and Russia has missed the boat with that. Ukrainians have dug in and shown their resilience. They will be a lot harder to break down from now on.

Russia can level Kyiv but all that artillery has limited range of about 20-30km. Zelensky has already suggested they start to push out and launch counter attacks, the field artillery will be well within striking distance if they do. Russia will not have free reign to bombard the cities.

I hope you're right. I really do.

 

[Sarni]

As mentioned before, if he can't take the cities, I don't think Putin will think twice about trying to just destroy them completely.



I don't know if he'll be able to do that.
But what (I think) I know, is that Russia have more powerful bombs in their arsenal. Plenty of them. And I don't think Putin will back down. So I think the possibility is definitely there. Sadly.

That's the crux of a matter. Russia are probably incapable of holding major cities for long but they are perfectly capable of completely destroying them and making them almost impossible to rebuild.

Crimea is lost. It was lost in 2014. LNR and DNR, don't know, probably concessions can be made. But to expect Russia to 'give back' Crimea is unrealistic at this point unless we think it's possible that Ukraine will just destroy Russia into oblivion.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

Have they used thermobaric bombs on the regular? I've seen it mentioned once or twice, but have they really started using them in cities like Kyiv over time? Of the "Father of all bombs" magnitude? If so, I take back everything I've said.

I also think the nuclear option is off the table (for now, and like you I'm not even sure he can make that decision alone), but I also think it's naive to think what we're seeing right now is the full force of the Russian armed forces. I think they have another gear or two, before the last resort.

(Not sure if I'm included in the part about giving up Crimea etc, but just in case it is, I'm not suggesting they should)

 

[redshaw]

I guess when they say Crimea recognized they want Ukraine to unblock the river. Is there any estimates to how much the gas reserves are worth there? Seems a very lucrative thing for Ukraine to have back if at all possible.

 

[Fearless]

To you maybe. They seem to matter to the Ukrainians seeking them. Also Afghanistan and Ukraine are different. The former was not a NATO member and their citizens mostly saw Westerners as outsiders. Ukrainians (ethnic ones at least) seem to overwhelmingly want to be part of the West and are fighting for it, rather than shrugging their shoulders and awaiting take over. Abandoning a NATO member would mean the alliance collapsing. The stakes are much higher than they were in Afghanistan and the situation different.

If Putin made a connection between the two, it's him who's miscalculated.

I hope you're right, but NATO members failed / couldn't be arsed to foresee this specific tragedy as a direct result of it's insane lack of investment and reliance of Russian gas.

 

[nimic]

What weapons can he use that he hasn't already? They're supposed to have used thermobaric bombs right? So unless he's willing to go nuclear (which would be mental even if the West or China didn't retaliate as he's hundreds of thousands of his own troops and swathes of military equipment more or less trapped in Ukraine), basically his only threat is to blow the nuclear power plants up? But he can't say that out loud because he's making out that it's the Ukrainians who are doing it as a false flag...

I'm not saying that won't be his instinct because he's a bully but I'm not sure he's really got the option.

And to all the people saying Ukraine should give up Crimea - from a cultural point of view perhaps it makes the most sense but it makes no sense for the Ukrainians militarily / strategically. It's a short hop across the water to most of Ukraine's most strategic cities. If I were them I'd perhaps wait another week or two and then offer an advisory referendum under Ukraine's administration with independent audit (China?) on Crimea as hopefully the sanctions will have really started to bite and maybe the population of Crimea will have started to see the Russian soldiers coming home and hear their stories by then.

That or I'd actually rather give up the 2 eastern regions to be "independent" than give up Crimea tbh.

And if I could secure Crimea I'd get NATO to help me fortify the shit out of its Eastern border to stop this happening again so easily.

There's obviously no way Russia, which is currently the country invading, is going to let Ukraine run a referendum in Crimea. There's also sadly almost no chance Crimea would vote to go back to Ukraine.

 

[Enigma_87]

There's no demand that is reasonable if the security guarantees are provided solely by the aggressor (Russia). Inclusion in blocs will be a red line for Kyiv, someone has to guarantee their security.

It should be finished in a treaty that's for sure with western nations providing guarantee, not just between Ukraine and Russia, because we know how it will end.

It's the Moscow reporter for ABC News quoting the Kremlin spokesperson. You think he's lying?

Kremlin are telling us they are denazifying the entire country and are undergoing special military operation. I have zero trust in them and what they are claiming.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[TMDaines]

And how to read these maps:

Spoiler

 

[Spark]

To you maybe. They seem to matter to the Ukrainians seeking them. Also Afghanistan and Ukraine are different. The former was not a NATO member and their citizens mostly saw Westerners as outsiders. Ukrainians (ethnic ones at least) seem to overwhelmingly want to be part of the West and are fighting for it, rather than shrugging their shoulders and awaiting take over. Abandoning a NATO member would mean the alliance collapsing. The stakes are much higher than they were in Afghanistan and the situation different.

If Putin made a connection between the two, it's him who's miscalculated.

Exactly this. Previous Western - re: US - interventionism has absolutely no bearing on this. Arguably, Afghanistan has proven countless times that invading a country and propping up a friendly government requires a non-stop military presence. Ukraine is not Afghanistan or even Chechnya in the slightest - it has a widely educated population who have made it very clear that they do not want to live under the Russian yoke, have a Western trained military and seem to be incredibly willing to continue resistance.

Russia has proven that it cannot be trusted at all in negotiations. Whether that's because they've lost command discipline and literally can't enforce their orders on the front line (which I'm actually inclined to believe, because shelling fleeing civilians is not only barbaric but counter intuitive to furthering their goals) or whatever is irrelevant, their word means nothing.

Therefore, simply "agreeing" to their demands is not an option for any government of Ukraine. Ukraine cannot go the way of Switzerland, as it's impossible with Russia on your border and Finlandisation is seemingly impossible as long as Russia continues to annex Crimea and support the artificial breakaway provinces. Russia needs to think about its own people too - if Ukraine were to agree to their demands, the sanctions will remain. Should Russia compromise and roll back on its invasion plus agree to tidy up the destruction they've caused I think you'll see sanctions rolled back. What that compromise looks like is anyone's guess at this moment, but it can't be their current stated war aims.

One more thing to add, should Ukraine actually decide to rescind their application for NATO under threat from Russia I think you'll find other countries immediately looking to join the alliance to avoid the same fate, i.e. Finland and Sweden. Then you'll see how much of a deal NATO actually is for Russia or whether that was a smokescreen to simply steamroll a successful democratic nation on its border to avoid its large Russian minority from corrupting their brethren within the Federation's borders.

 

[Maagge]

There's obviously no way Russia, which is currently the country invading, is going to let Ukraine run a referendum in Crimea. There's also sadly almost no chance Crimea would vote to go back to Ukraine.

Does this change as Russia's economy tumbles?

 

[Raoul]

This is a good thread

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Jotun]

Sure, which is why I said takes the capital and/or ups the ante in regards to what weapons are in play. You can't take the city? Make the city unlivable.

The rest of your points are all fair, but I still don't think Putin will back down with increased pressure. I think he'll just escalate further. Anything to save face, even if that means taking on all of Europe head on. (I also think that'll be his downfall. I mentioned earlier that I believe his days are numbered as the Russian head of state, with the oligarchs (and if given time, potentially the people) turning on him.)

I can't see Putin upping the ante. He's already commited 95% of his forces and most of it is bogged down and tied up. He's got no reserves, ffs he is begging Syrians to join. He might take on whole Europe, but that means US too, as that would allow him full mobilization, but he can't win that war, he said so himself, only move left is nukes, and I see coup before that happens. Either way it's GG for Putin if he escalates. Honestly, I think West will offer him Crimea as a way out and he should accept it, otherwise I don't see this ending well for him.

I might be completely wrong, but based on parameters I'm seeing from following this war, that's the best he can hope for. He might achieve victory through military power, but I think that's significantly less likely than suffering a complete defeat.

 

[VorZakone]

I can't see Putin upping the ante. He's already commited 95% of his forces and most of it is bogged down and tied up. He's got no reserves, ffs he is begging Syrians to join. He might take on whole Europe, but that means US too, as that would allow him full mobilization, but he can't win that war, he said so himself, only move left is nukes, and I see coup before that happens. Either way it's GG for Putin if he escalates. Honestly, I think West will offer him Crimea as a way out and he should accept it, otherwise I don't see this ending well for him.

I might be completely wrong, but based on parameters I'm seeing from following this war, that's the best he can hope for. He might achieve victory through military power, but I think that's significantly less likely than suffering a complete defeat.

95% of the prepared combat force for this invasion, not all of the Russian military. He may choose to mobilize more troops to send to Ukraine, though I doubt it.

 

[TwoSheds]

There's obviously no way Russia, which is currently the country invading, is going to let Ukraine run a referendum in Crimea. There's also sadly almost no chance Crimea would vote to go back to Ukraine.

Maybe not. So fight on until June then when Putin can't pay his troops, be interesting to see how the people of Crimea feel then.

 

[nimic]

This is a good thread

Interesting thread, but maybe praetorian guard was a poor comparison given they were involved in or even directly lead most coups against emperors.

Fingers crossed!

 

[MadMike]

There's obviously no way Russia, which is currently the country invading, is going to let Ukraine run a referendum in Crimea. There's also sadly almost no chance Crimea would vote to go back to Ukraine.

I mean, I don't get this. If a free referendum in Crimea is guaranteed to choose Russia over Ukraine, then why not accept it? It will also give the Kremlin the democratic legitimacy it seeks.

 

[TwoSheds]

I can't see Putin upping the ante. He's already commited 95% of his forces and most of it is bogged down and tied up. He's got no reserves, ffs he is begging Syrians to join. He might take on whole Europe, but that means US too, as that would allow him full mobilization, but he can't win that war, he said so himself, only move left is nukes, and I see coup before that happens. Either way it's GG for Putin if he escalates. Honestly, I think West will offer him Crimea as a way out and he should accept it, otherwise I don't see this ending well for him.

I might be completely wrong, but based on parameters I'm seeing from following this war, that's the best he can hope for. He might achieve victory through military power, but I think that's significantly less likely than suffering a complete defeat.

Mentions of Syria are quite interesting. At what point would the west consider going in directly and overthrowing the government there? Is it definitely a no go so long as there are more than handful of Russian troops do we think? What if a tame 3rd party like the Aussies or someone went in? They have a defence pact with US and UK (for better or worse) but I don't think they're part of NATO right?

 

[Skåre Willoch]

I can't see Putin upping the ante. He's already commited 95% of his forces and most of it is bogged down and tied up. He's got no reserves, ffs he is begging Syrians to join. He might take on whole Europe, but that means US too, as that would allow him full mobilization, but he can't win that war, he said so himself, only move left is nukes, and I see coup before that happens. Either way it's GG for Putin if he escalates. Honestly, I think West will offer him Crimea as a way out and he should accept it, otherwise I don't see this ending well for him.

I might be completely wrong, but based on parameters I'm seeing from following this war, that's the best he can hope for. He might achieve victory through military power, but I think that's significantly less likely than suffering a complete defeat.

So if I understand what you’re saying, you believe Russia is facing complete defeat in the near future? 95% of his forces involved, no reserves, no possibility of further escalation etc.

I believe this is wishful thinking, but I really hope I’m wrong.

 

[MTF]

Mentions of Syria are quite interesting. At what point would the west consider going in directly and overthrowing the government there? Is it definitely a no go so long as there are more than handful of Russian troops do we think? What if a tame 3rd party like the Aussies or someone went in? They have a defence pact with US and UK (for better or worse) but I don't think they're part of NATO right?

Hopefully never, because Iraq and Afghanistan prove that little good and much suffering comes from those attempts.

 

[Raoul]

I mean, I don't get this. If a free referendum in Crimea is guaranteed to choose Russia over Ukraine, then why not accept it? It will also give the Kremlin the democratic legitimacy it seeks.

It was a referendum at gunpoint, which is why no one (other than nations representing the opening scene in the Naked Gun) recognize it as legit, and continue to view Crimea as part of Ukraine.

 

[MadMike]

It was a referendum at gunpoint, which is why no one (other than nations representing the opening scene in the Naked Gun) recognize it as legit, and continue to view Crimea as part of Ukraine.

I'm talking of a new, proper and free referendum as part of a potential peace deal. The president can't just sign away national territory (Crimea) otherwise.

 

[Enigma_87]

Russia take capital??? Maybe, but I consider it unlikely. Sarajevo was sieged for almost four years. If there are supplies coming in the city, it can defend almost indefinitely. Plus Kiev is HUUGE. Encircling it would be very hard, taking even harder. Even then, breaches of encirclement to provide supplies are possible. Note, that as the war goes on, Ukrainian manpower will grow. They are in full mobilization, but it takes time. Foreign fighter will keep coming.

Russian manpower will get worse and they can not enter total war and full mobilization (which is what Ukraine will be doing), as it would cause unrest in the country. As the Russian army is bogged down in Ukraine, they will have to divert resources. If they withdraw from Syria, Assad might fall. They need to keep resource in the country to prevent unrest and rebellion. As economy collapses, you can bet that Dagestan and Tatarstan will have ideas about independence, Chechens likely too. Who knows who else. If the war keeps long enough, Russia might end up losing their own territory.

Also while Russian economy and war effort collapses under these sanctions, Ukraine will be propped by the west. Putin is right in one thing, these sanctions are a declaration of war. He isn't fighting just Ukraine, he is fighting whole western world. Ukraine is just a proxy. Unless China bails him out (which I don't see as they will want to stay neutral) he can't keep this up. He needs to finish this and quickly. But I don't see how.

Unfortunately, war toll will be heavy on all of us and it will fall hardest on Ukraine.

I'm not sure if they are that focused on Kyiv. Biggest goal is the south and Odessa. As you mentioned even if they breach the capital, maintaining control of it would be monumental task and they need to concentrate a lot of manpower there alone.

 

[sun_tzu]

I mean, I don't get this. If a free referendum in Crimea is guaranteed to choose Russia over Ukraine, then why not accept it? It will also give the Kremlin the democratic legitimacy it seeks.

Russia already ran a referendum that gave this result

For Russia to now say there needs to be a free referendum with international oversight so that the result is legitimate would not on call into question the legitimacy of their previous referendum but other elections in Russia

So I'm pretty sure that would be a Defcon 1 type red line

 

[Raoul]

I'm talking of a new, proper and free referendum as part of a potential peace deal. The president can't just sign away national territory (Crimea) otherwise.

How free would it be given that all Russian controlled territory is marinating in wall to wall Goebels style pro-Putin propaganda.

Putin would have to fall, the Ukrainians would then have to set in motion a timeline (let's say one year) for locals to decide their future based on a credible and transparent referendum that is free from any outside influence.

 

[shamans]

You left out the part where I specified it depends on being selective about whom you follow. Bellingcat and others on Twitter easily picked apart the Russian lies over shooting down MH17, their use of chemical weapons in Syria, and the military build-up for the current invasion.

Left it out because I wasn't replying to it. It's a subjective matter to say if they're accurate enough or not. Just yesterday CNN had a headline "Russia exhausted 95% of its troops".

Again, just seems to me like an easy way for the rest of the world to go to sleep easier thinking Ukraine is fighting back without actually committing to the fight. Saying "yeah, this sucks but we kinda don't wanna get our hands dirty. Sorry Ukraine, was nice knowing ya!" doesn't sound as good.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Is Russia going to pay to rebuild the country they have just smashed!