I doubt it.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Well in Big Bad Vlad’s mind, isn’t this all just friendly fire on his own cities currently dictated to by the criminal Zelinsky?
I understand that but equally the President (of Ukraine) can't just sign away territory can he? Does he even have the constitutional authority to do that? Something will have to give, somehow.
What happened in the last Belarusian elections showed the danger of a dictator presuming the result will be in their favour.
It bled so much you could briefly get 200 Rubles for a Pound just now.
Last edited:
Yes - my gut fee is that if its a case of
1. Putin Killing lots of people to save face and Zelenski giving away territory to stop the killing
2. Or Putin deciding that he is going to give up his claim on Crimea and handing it back to zelenski
I am unfortunately thinking scenario 1 is a lot more likley
I can't help but feel that part of Russia's aim in this war is to set things up for a situation where, even if they don't achieve all their goals, they're in a strong position to play the old referendum game to annex everything east of the Dnieper via a 'democratic vote'. I have an inkling that the intentional shelling of civilian targets and the creation of a refugee crisis in the eastern cities is, in part, a deliberate move to engineer favourable demographics for both that referendum and subsequent rule from Moscow. What's the betting a refugee returning to their home in an occupied east would find a family of Russian settlers sitting at the dinner table?
Russian economy is shattered. In a week or so, it will crumble, in a month it will be on its death bed. I am sure some additional sanctions will follow too. Any news regarding jet fighters from Poland?
That could be one objective of Putin's if he can't take all of Ukraine, but it probably wouldn't have time to work if his own economy collapses in the interim. Even then, Crimea would still be infested with brainwashed Russians steeped in a decade of pro-Russian propaganda, which would make it very difficult.
Last edited:
To what extent can China prop up the Russian economy?
True. But I doubt it too. Those troops will not be particularly trained, low on morale. Plus mobilization for war in ukraine will be unpopular. That just might be his last move. He could reallocate existing forces, but that's risky too. He might lose in Syria. 'Stans might try to go independent. Really hard to get more manpower to Ukraine.
What is near future? But it's not unrealistic. Really optimistic scenario I give it two months. Micheal Kofman (he's been very on point so far) speculates that in three weeks, Russian military is spent. Then we might see ceasefire or counter offensive (that's the basis for really optimistic scenario).
If the FSB whistleblower account is true Russian economy is gone by June. They will not be able to support war. So in just optimistic scenario they are defeated by Fall.
Pessimistic scenario is Russia will take some cities, dig in and keep them occupied and war will keep going on for years, but eventually they'll have to leave or Ukrainians will slowly drive them out with significant casualties. Basically similar to Yugoslav wars. Honestly, I think Serbians/Yugoslavia had much better position in that war than Russians do now. And yet, Serbia/Yugoslavia achieved none of its political goals.
Finally, really pesimistic scenario. Russia manages to take Mariupol quickly. Maybe Kharkiv too, and then cuts off and encircles Ukrainians forces in the east and completely destroys them. They keep progressing in the south, eventually taking Odessa. Finally they split the country in half. Dig in and proclaim novorussya. Conflict goes on for years, even a decade, with western powers abandoning Ukraine and Russia dealing with massive insurgency. Basically we get middle east in europe. I find this scenario the most unlikely of all, but not impossible. It's the only way I see Russia getting anything out of it. It would not be worth it. Much better to settle for Crimea now.
Ruble has declined from 76 = $1 a month ago, to 147 = $1 today - i.e. it's almost halved in value.
If receiving constitutional guarantees that Ukraine won't seek NATO membership allows Russia to claim a victory, and remove their forces then that's not the worst outcome. But the same shouldn't apply to a potential EU membership, because joining the EU could potentially have so many more benefits for the country way beyond the defence arguments that NATO provides. As a sovereign country Ukraine should be allowed to choose their future of their own volition, and obviously that applies to both EU and NATO ambitions but I believe NATO isn't as important if they were allowed to join the EU. And Putin can't argue this is about protecting Russia from western aggression when it comes to the EU, when he's painted NATO as the main bogeyman.
That being said, if the Ukrainians have the stomach for it, I think this conflict has gone too far to accept any kind of compromises like that. With all those atrocities committed Russia shouldn't be allowed to walk away with anything Putin can sell as a victory back home. This may well be a chance to weaken Putin's domestic standing, even if it may take a while. Of course that would mean more Ukrainian suffering in the mean time, and ordinary Russians will also suffer under the sanctions, so it's not for me to judge which ever choice Ukraine may make, but the world would be a better place if this whole crisis hopefully leads to a more democratic and reasonable Russia, with Ukraine's sovereignty in tact.
That being said, if the Ukrainians have the stomach for it, I think this conflict has gone too far to accept any kind of compromises like that. With all those atrocities committed Russia shouldn't be allowed to walk away with anything Putin can sell as a victory back home. This may well be a chance to weaken Putin's domestic standing, even if it may take a while. Of course that would mean more Ukrainian suffering in the mean time, and ordinary Russians will also suffer under the sanctions, so it's not for me to judge which ever choice Ukraine may make, but the world would be a better place if this whole crisis hopefully leads to a more democratic and reasonable Russia, with Ukraine's sovereignty in tact.
Tough decisions for Zelenskiy.
Well there you go ... if you want to put a price in human life it seems its about half your gas bill
From a ukranian pov, accepting not being able to join NATO/EU seems suicidal long term. What else would Russia stop - even in the near future - from keeping pushing forward? They started in Crimea and now they keep pushing.
Yeah but 2 isn't happening if Crimea is as pro-Russian as people say right? In any case as @Raoul has said it's difficult to have a truly free referendum under the circumstances. Crimea has been getting only the Kremlin's view of events for years. But I assume even the show of a referendum (one endorsed by Kyiv) might be required to overcome some legal hurdles with Ukraine official accepting Russian ownership. The previous referendum was obviously not endorsed or recognised by Kyiv.
At the very least they should retain the right to EU membership. After all it's not a military organisation and it makes Russia's "security concerns" spiel sound hollow.
I think the last paragraph is the most likely scenario currently. Putin's not a person that admits defeat or shows weakness, the past two decades of war and murders have shown that, the only two scenarios that are possible with him there are 1) eventually taking Ukraine 2) someone topples the despot and ends the war.
I think the stalemate scenario could happen if the western allies keep pilling on the sanctions and provide more weapons. The news on the sanctions on oil/gas and potentially providing planes to Ukraine is promising and would tilt the scales in favour of Russia pulling out. But as it stands they can weather a longer than expected fight in Ukraine, even if it hurts them in the short-term, because Putin would demand so.
Economical aspects play a major part in basically all wars ever fought. It's nothing new and no one should be surprised about this in a globalized world full of international interdependencies.
Interesting post.
Regarding the bolded part - what are the similarities here? I mean, we saw massive ethnic cleansing, civil war etc, with NATO intervening because of the sheer brutality (and other things). Serbia/Yugoslavia didn’t reach their political goals because the world stopped them from reaching them, no?
well, joining EU would mean if Ukraine is attacked again, it'd trigger EU defense clauses, which would certainly mean NATO members, being involved, resulting in NATO itself being involved
Hasn't he previously expressed admiration for Putin? I wonder what some of these people really think now? I hope there's a backlash against Farage, Le pen etc. but there probably won't be.
No. I've never liked Hitchens but he isn't a Putin-admirer. He's a Russophile and critical of the West, but he's always condemned Putin's regime from what I've seen of him.
This is an extremely complex issue, as there were three different wars being fought. Still to this day, people here are arguing whether Serbia even had thought-out political goals once things started.
However, to reply to what you said, I would say:
In Croatia, you are correct. The Croatian Serbs had an opportunity for huge autonomy and blew it. Utter disaster for Serbia/Yugoslavia, but even more so, for those people, who were expelled from Croatia.
In Bosnia, I would argue that the Bosnian Serbs did achieve their goal. The less said about the way they did it, the better.
In Kosovo, given how hostile the population there were towards Serbia, I would argue that Serbia had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
Well, yes sort of. But only if a NATO country is attacked does the defensive partnership coming into play. For example if Ukraine was attacked then Germany and France (and the rest of EU) would have to declare war on Russia. But since they were not being attacked the rest of NATO (US, Canada, UK etc.) doesn't have to be involved legally. Also from the Russian perspective the difference is between having and not having American bases on their borders. That, I presume, matters a lot to them.
They have massively focused on Kyiv, the 40km column is in the north not the south. They were literrally airdropping troops and vehicles there on the first few nights with massed helicopter support, along with infiltrations within the city doing what damage they could.
They have just come up against a brick wall, their attempts to surround the city have completely failed.
In comparison, they took their time getting to Mariupol and haven't touched Odessa yet. If the south is their biggest goal, it certainly wasn't plan A.
If Russia do fall back, does Ukraine try to take Crimea back?
Geography is the obvious problem.
Russia doesn't want a country the size of the Ukraine as part of a NATO (an alliance that was specifically set up to oppose the former Soviet Union) on its doorstep. Ukraine is now a sovereign country and wants total autonomy/freedom from its massive neighbour (whose President still seems intent on building a new style Soviet Union).
If seems obvious that at some point for any sort of ongoing peace to have a chance to exist, that there would have to be some form of demilitarized zone, keeping both apart, its whereabouts (geographically) and how big would that have to be and who would oversee the demilitarization (presumably the UN) would be necessary.
Presumably when Putin captures/secures as much land as he thinks is necessary, he will come to the table.
Russia doesn't want a country the size of the Ukraine as part of a NATO (an alliance that was specifically set up to oppose the former Soviet Union) on its doorstep. Ukraine is now a sovereign country and wants total autonomy/freedom from its massive neighbour (whose President still seems intent on building a new style Soviet Union).
If seems obvious that at some point for any sort of ongoing peace to have a chance to exist, that there would have to be some form of demilitarized zone, keeping both apart, its whereabouts (geographically) and how big would that have to be and who would oversee the demilitarization (presumably the UN) would be necessary.
Presumably when Putin captures/secures as much land as he thinks is necessary, he will come to the table.
yeah, those American bases might be the much bigger factor, as in reality and regarding EU/NATO it wouldn't make much of a difference, even if there's some legal incongruence
Not unless the Putin regime collapses after failing in Ukraine and there's a momentary power vacuum between Russian governments to where the Ukrainians see a window of opportunity.
I agree. NATO is dominated by the American military, and the US is Russia's historical and ideological adversary. So not allowing American bases in Ukraine is probably a big objective. However now that European countries have woken up from their peaceful slumber and are starting to bolster their military budgets, potential American involvement in a future conflict would likely not be necessary to deter Russian aggression.
They had a better position because the Yugoslav army was predominantly Serb, and the West put an arms embargo on the area which meant Bosnians and others weren't able to arm themselves to defend themselves. Ukraine is getting weapons at least now, and they had a good sized army to start with.
A pretty massive difference to start is the world let them go on for 4 years and put an arms embargo on nations like Bosnia so we couldn't defend ourselves, while it didn't impact the Serbs as they had the Yugoslav army. They only stepped in when it became clear that they were committing genocide against Bosnians.
Here, despite not actively stepping in, they are at least sending weaponry and support to what is a decent sized army in the first place?
The similarities IMO are the ideologies in place. Putin doesn't think Ukraine should be a country and that the land belongs to Russia. Serbs had goals of a greater Serbia and felt that land belonged to them, that the Bosnian identity didn't exist and there was no place for them in their country, etc. So the core basis behind the attack is similar I'd say. There's similarities in the dominant super power just shelling cities and civilian buildings without care. The resistance is the biggest difference I'd say.