Russians firing on Ukrainian towns in Donbas
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 its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.
And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
Your joking right? Do I need to list the aid given/promised so far by the US? It far surpasses anything anyone expected.
So?
Exclusive: Leading experts accuse Russia of inciting genocide in Ukraine and intending to 'destroy' Ukrainian people
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/europe/russia-ukraine-genocide-warning-intl/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/27/europe/russia-ukraine-genocide-warning-intl/index.html
Henry Kissinger's take.....
https://www.newsweek.com/does-henry-kissinger-have-point-ukraine-opinion-1710638
When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
One that won't age well in history, much like Kissinger's reputation and credibility.
I just cannot see a positive outcome in the long term to Ukraine being invaded, a genocide being committed and then being forced or pressured to cut a deal with Putin.
They already had international agreements guaranteeing their territorial integrity ripped up once.
In the eyes of Zelenskyy/Ukraine, pre invasion is pre 2014.
I’d imagine they’re only doubling down on that now they’re in a strong position and growing ever stronger.
From what I've heard from him from the start, his stance is very much never giving up on Crimea, but he see's that territory more of a diplomatic mission more than a military one. The situation is always changing though, if/when Russia retreats from post 24/2 borders, it may be because they has pretty much been a colapse of their armed forces, at which point a military option may be on the cards. We are a long way off knowing what that reality may look like however.
So... Your talking bollocks.
How does Kasparov figure that 2 EU countries are rewarding Russia for its crimes?
I will happily threadban you for posting bullshit here.
The US is currently giving $135 million worth of support per day to the Ukrainian war effort.
I never said the US wasn't, so I'm confused as to why you're angry?
I'm not. Just letting you know.
Perhaps, but what other outcome do you really see happening without Putin butchering thousands more in the meantime?
I had to stop on the highway while crossing White Sands while there was a live fire test of an MLRS. No clue how far away either the launcher or the target was, but the missiles were clearly audible when they passed overhead. It became like a block party for the thirty minutes before the test was started, it was just another day for the locals.
I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.
Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason to do so 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.
Last edited:
Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
He just tried to take Kyiv, murder the existing democratically elected Ukrainian leader and replace him with a Russian stooge only 3 months ago.
No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.
Not sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.
You could've made the above argument in 2015 and been proven wrong in the present. Let's say he took Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Zap, Dnipro (along with already having Dontesk, Luhansk, and Crimea). That's literally a vast majority of Ukraine and its economy.
That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.
Now fast forward to 2025 to a world where Putin controls most of Ukraine and suddenly decides to concoct a grievance that western Ukrainian fascists in Lviv are sabotaging Russian interests in Russian controlled Ukraine, leading us back to where we were over the past few months, except this time, there is no Ukraine or Ukrainian military to fight off Russian invaders. This is why Putin has to be stopped now, not at some hypothetical later date when the resources to stop him no longer exist and the US is ruled by the next Donald Trump administration.
Last edited:
I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).
Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.
I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.
And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get the Donbas back.
Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
Last edited:
I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of Ukraine
I think Russia is winning. Both sides are taking massive losses but from what I've seen, from both Western and Ukrainian and Russian and non-aligned sources, Russia is slowly taking the Donbas and encircling a large number of Ukrainian troops. They also seem to be consolidating the south. It might be that Ukraine counters but I doubt it. It's not popular but I've noticed a change in Western reporting lately to manage expectations. The best case scenario now is a prolonged Afghan conflict and I think both sides would want to avoid that but who knows. You have to question the narrative that's been spun by certain sources because it isn't holding up relative to the picture given by others. In particular, open source intelligence has been particularly crap so far.
On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.
Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.
On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.
Last edited:
That sounds more like it.
That is what I meant by bit by bit.
And there would be one way of stopping that. NATO membership.
This is a truly bizarre take for a country who just signed a £40bn lend lease bill.
No one said destroying their own pipeline infrastructure is a good idea, especially given they could resume using it once there's a change in government in Russia. The fact that Nord Stream has been curtailed means Putin will require existing infrastructure within Ukraine to sell to Europe. Although Europe would probably diversify away from Putin if he were to magically take control of all of Ukraine.
Good luck Russia trying to hold the line after the gains have been made. Time is on Ukrainian side as long as heavy weapons will keep flowing from NATO. Russia doesn’t have the capacity to replace them with anything. The most famous igor strelkov have said as much a few weeks ago, where he predicted that Russia will eventually make gains in Donbass but it won’t be able to hold it, he’s been pretty spot on so far the cnut. I think for Ukraine it’s an existential war which they absolutely have to win it at all costs and they know it themselves as any peace deal at this stage will slowly destroy them.
It's not a done deal yet though. If NATO and the EU (or rather: just the US) decide that they don't want Russia to get a full hold on the Donbas, then they will have to ramp up their support for Ukraine - which may be why the US are now moving forward with providing even better equipment to Ukraine (if that's confirmed now).
More generally, I do think the US are happy with Russia getting into a prolonged war over the Donbas, as it would keep chipping away at Russia's military, economy, and internal public support. Russia conquering all of the Donbas and calling it quits (for now) would undo all three of those aspects, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they keep propping up Ukraine with additional materials. (But not necessarily to the point where it would actually defeat Russia, as that might actually also be less desirable than an ongoing war from a US viewpoint - even if these equipment transfers are costly to the US as well.)
It's so weird to talk about people dieing and lives and places being destroyed in this sort of cold way.
Isn't that impossible as long as Ukraine is involved in a war?
Yes. But if Putin took part of Ukraine and then stopped for a period of time, that was the opportunity I was thinking of.