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.
I still have no idea what you're actually on about.
It escalated beyond a point of no return for deals when Putin decided to launch a full scale war on Ukraine, bombing major cities to the ground. He's the one that took that step, no one else. He's the aggressive party here. The reasons behind it are shit no matter how you choose to look at it. Given the amount of hypocrisy, considering the amount of shit that the world will actually allow, it's fairly fecking impressive that Putin has managed to overstep it's boundaries to such an extent. Not only is it impressive, but it's also deeply concerning as it makes it very difficult to predict just how fecking daft his next move will be. Standing idly by is hardly much of an option, no matter what they do they will always cry about nuclear destruction. Dealing with him, after the amount of shit he's started and the excuses they've been throwing around, is going to be so difficult that the alternative would have to be an absolute disaster in order for it to be plausible.
There's no secret agenda here. Russia has always been a bit of a disaster and it's down to leadership, naturally it's difficult being a dictator ala Putin in a well functioning society, where the population might have a few more questions about the billions going into the pockets of the "protectors of Russia". Putin portraying it as "The West" wanting to keep the mighty Russia down is as bizarre as it gets. Nobody gives a shit, seriously, it's been a shit place for years and it'll continue to be a shit place for years to come. We're tens of years past the point where people gave a shit. The preference would easily be a well functioning Russia that would continue to secure economic growth. There's no interest in trying to control Russia, no interest in installing a puppet leader. The only interest is Russia having a leader that doesn't launch full scale wars on countries on the border of Europe, destabilizing the world economy.
Look at a certain North Korean leader, happy to allow him to feck around a bit and it's mostly words as the majority has faith in China stomping on that miserable fecker if he's about to do something proper stupid..
Last edited:
There are Unconfirmed reports that an Offensive by Russian Forces in the Luhansk Region has Collapsed and that over 100 Russian Soldiers have been taken Prisoner by Ukrainian Para-Military and Military, its Claimed that multiple Armored Vehicles and Tanks were also Captured.
If this video is true, it probably debunks the claim that the separatists control 93% of Luhansk that was spread yesterday.
If this video is true, it probably debunks the claim that the separatists control 93% of Luhansk that was spread yesterday.
Last edited:
This, I suspect his words are chosen quite carefully.
You shouldn't be surprised at all mate. If NATO defend one city 40 miles from Poland then what? Might as well defend a 20, 30, 40 mile radius around Lviv I assume?
Because that's what the Ukrainians will ask for and this war would escalate quickly.
No part of Ukraine is part of NATO so NATO can't intervene directly. Which is what deploying anti missile measures across the border from Poland would amount to.
The border is the border. I’m struggling to see the outrage and what you can’t grasp if I’m honest.
I agree with Haass. There's an immense gap between what the US is actually doing in the conflict vs these words implying a regime change objective. If the White House is trying to talk it back then it is the worst case so far of Biden's undisciplined messaging. I also don't think regime change is a viable objective anyway.
You can get a rare honest assessment on what’s happening in Russia in statements of Russian officials & propagandists about Ukraine, just swap the countries. Fascism, unlawful imprisonment of protesters, elimination of freedom of speech & meetings, lack of concern for people’s lives, health & well-being etc.
It wasn’t about that, let’s just be clear about it.
As for your suggestion though, the process of separating of a territory through legal or illegal means almost never goes as planned, sadly. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a recent example, while there are so many of those that ended up in war/violence etc.
Some weird interpretations, imo. Biden isn't talking about any active strategy to remove Putin from power, he is however stating the obvious from a global perspective, there's no benefit for anyone if he controls Russia for years to come, it will be detrimental for everyone.
In last 24 hours there was a statement suggesting Russia might be reducing its war aims. Makes for an odd moment for US to expand its aims unless it has reason to believe doing so could help bring about internal change in Russia. Otherwise seems undisciplined/counter-productive.
"suggesting"
"might"
First of all, if Russia are reducing any aims then it's a direct result of problems they are facing in Ukraine, which is hardly anything to reward, secondly no one is expanding any aims. It should be fairly obvious what the sanctions are and the purpose they serve. No one actually wants a long term situation with major sanctions towards Russia, but as long as Putin remains in power it's fairly difficult to reward Russia for holding out after deciding to invade a country on the doorstep of Europe, killing a shitload of innocent civilians. The longer he remains in power, the more difficult it's going to be. The financial implications, the food crisis this could easily cause, access to raw materials. Just the size of the companies completely abandoning major projects in Russia is one thing, it's difficult to reverse that.
No idea why Haass reckons the major concern in all of this is Putins support on matters related to Syria, North Korea, Iran.
Because there was nothing to support Donbas’s separatism or Russian-accession organically. There was greater pro-independence sentiment in Wales in the UK.
The only way you’d ever get a majority of Donetsk and Luhansk to vote for independence from Ukraine or to join Russia would be to run sham referendums or systematically shift the demographics of the people living in the region through war, forced migrations and political suppression, which is exactly what Russia has been doing since 2014, and has indeed done throughout the history of its empire.
Long thread:
Do you want WW3? Cause this is how you get WW3.
The longer the war goes on and the more Russians die and supplies dwindle to nothing, the harder it is for Russia to justify it.
If they can't justify it then who do they look at to vent their ire at?
Maybe outside forces want to keep it going rather than have Russia de-escalate and claim a pyrrhic victory because it puts Putin's position in jeapordy.
If they can't justify it then who do they look at to vent their ire at?
Maybe outside forces want to keep it going rather than have Russia de-escalate and claim a pyrrhic victory because it puts Putin's position in jeapordy.
I miss Jessica Walter.
Than me. 
Than me.
no, that’s right. Even in his head he misspells things.
They can just do what they did before, but now officially have Russia claim the occupied lands. I doubt they are precious enough about having to have every inch of Luhansk and Donetsk. Add a few gains like Mariupol and then bed in and create an indefinite front.
If Putin remains in power, I reckon that some or all of Russia's currently frozen gold and foreign exchange reserves - that's $300 billion in total - will be seized and given to Ukraine for post-war rebuilding.
Good thread on how sanctions are killing Russia:
If NATO committed to defending Ukrainian territory, then you have handed Russia a means of probing NATO directly, and a pathway to escalation. That's an incredibly dangerous thing to do.
I agree. Putin's posture towards the West was aggressive and disruptive even before this. He cannot be trusted and so long as he is in power, he is a danger to European security. There's no normal relations with Russia until he is gone. However, we can take that one at a time - his removal doesn't does not need to be a condition of peace between Ukraine and Russia. It should be a condition of normality between the West and Russia / an objective of western policy after this.
Guys, I get why there's isn't a no fly zone all over Ukraine. Even if we wanted to, it's hard to implement where it is needed (Mariupol) because the skies there are protected by Russian AA batteries on their lands. No way are we bombing Russia.
I just think we can do more on the Western side though. There's a huge number of refugees on that side and it would be a damn shame for humanity if we can't even protect a small, tiny area of Ukrainian land. And we don't even need our planes or boots on the ground to do it.
I agree we are probably doing the right thing strategically and diplomatically by refusing as far as possible to get involved, but I feel I'm losing a bit of my humanity as each day goes on as we remain steadfastly inactive, and now we might not even protect civilians literally within eyeshot of us at the border.
It just doesn't 'feel' right.
I think even an insane person would have gotten the hang of it by the 10th attempt.
Imagine having the 4th largest military budget on Earth and being this shit at war
All a bit United at the moment
Having the most nukes and a leader who rides around shirtless on horses helps to create the facade of toughness. Fortunately, we're seeing there's little meat on the bone beyond this perception.
A paper tiger if there ever was one.
What's the basis for this assumption? I don't think we've seen any evidence that Putin intends to shuffle off in 5 years. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. He intends to stay in power until he dies and that could be 10-15 years (or even more since we have that Chuck Grassley seeking re-election at 89 ffs). Also, I think the nuclear calculus is backward. If Putin is still around in 5, 10, 15 years and he's losing his mind even more during that time, I think the chance he uses nukes would be exponentially higher in 5-10 years than it is now. It definitely seems riskier to just let him stay in power with an (unsupported) assumption he'll quietly go away in 5 years.
Russia is a militaristic state of strongmen. Putin will know that he has to find a way out and has to have known this before Ukraine. He can't bank on staying in power forever. Maybe his aim is to stay in office until he dies, we can't know either way, and as you say Grassley is 89, Pelosi is 82, Biden is 79. But the older he gets the more people around him will be thinking about post-Putin Russia which is a very real factor that you cannot dismiss, especially in a state like Russia. His entire standing is based on being a strongman, not an eighty year old pensioner. If he stays in power, I don't see him staying beyond five or six years whether he wants to or not. In fact, much of the US strategy might be oriented toward trying to force him out early (making those people ask the questions that maybe wouldn't have been asked until nearer the end of the decade).
Yeah, I don't agree that Putin would step down or be removed naturally in 5 years. He's surrounded himself by yes men and I don't see any evidence some internal mechanism would remove him in 5 years. Those types never give up power unless they die. No way would I want to gamble on Putin leaving in 5 years. The best strategy at this point does seem to be to keep sanctions, have Putin's removal as a necessary condition for normalizing relations with the west and continue to apply pressure for him leaving now. I think it's far too dangerous to let him remain in power and hope something happens in 5, 10, 15 years after his actions in the last few months. I don't see a problem with anything Biden said so far, it's a sound approach.