Presidential advisor has to issue a statement telling soldiers to refrain from insulting Muslims.
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.
Presidential advisor has to issue a statement telling soldiers to refrain from insulting Muslims.
Yeah I think that's the way it seems to be going. I'm not sure it will work. It could, but equally likely is that Russia plays the Eurasian market and cuts itself off from the European market. EU states are not far away from no longer needing Russian energy, but the Asian market absolutely needs it. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russia reenters the European/American system even post-Putin. All speculative at this point but signs are an Oceanic sphere is taking shape, helped or primed by the invasion of Ukraine, and that this sphere may well be cut off, Cold War style, from the Eurasian/Chinese sphere. I think the US going back to Maduro for oil and trying to prize Iran away from China are key signs of this, but that is another topic for another thread. Basic point is that it isn't certain Russia will reset to a Western facing strategy post-Putin or that whoever/whatever replaces him will be more friendly.
The entire purpose of him staying in power indefinitely is because he would be arrested and executed if were to leave. He is very aware of this, which is why he won’t relinquish control until he’s overthrown from within. Gorbachev is still alive and kicking in his 90s and Putin is in far better physical shape than Gorby, and could easily remain in power for another 20-30 years. The world shouldn’t be held hostage by a madman with nukes for that time, which is why he needs to go now. A democratic Russia that loosely integrates into Europe will alleviate a massive burden of pressure on the international system.
It is been said that he won't seek reelection in 2024. On paper at least, the next president will have less power from 2024 onwards, and the federal parliament will hold more power.
But the real dynamics of power are much more complex than that. It is not just an almighty president steering everything.
https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/81037
I don't see some massive cleavage as possible or desirable for any of the parties. China and the west have economies that are too intertwined for that and long term, all sides benefit more from continuing the integrated global economy as opposed to splitting into isolated regional economies. For Russia, they 100% need to start building a more rounded economy, not one based on resource exportation, which Putin has done, and that would inevitably lead to greater integration into the global economy (not just becoming reliant on China).
Really regret choosing to give a good chunk of my donations to the British Red Cross and the DEC now. I can far more readily see how the Ukrainian Red Cross and more-focussed Ukrainian charities are making some difference on the ground.
A Russia that was guaranteed certain security matters (I'm talking post-Putin) and autonomy, would also be a potential economic behemoth because of its Eurasian position. With its population size, land mass, and energy/rare earth materials, its economy should be roughly twice the size of Germany's (or almost half that of the United States) instead of just under $2tn. The question is whether the Russian ruling class will sacrifice whatever they view as essential to a nationalistic Russia to reenter the European/American order.
On the other hand, Globalization as it was would appear to be dead. So maybe the "new Russia" isn't so easily achieved.
Last edited:
Even if that conclusion seemed viable in Nov 2020, I don't think that view still holds up in Feb 2022 after all we've seen since the invasion began. That article reads like an artifact of a completely different time reading it now.
Anyway, I think @harms of all posters in this thread is best qualified to make these types of assessments rather than those of us that live in the west.
Interesting indeed. I wonder how representative of Russia that view is? From the outside certainly you’d think that if people felt the economic pressure of the sanctions they’d at least expect a glorious victory in return
And most of their silo-based nukes wouldn’t even launch. I knew a missile tech in the early 90s who said at the time that roughly 60 to 70% of their silos had water in the base.
Going by everything that we know it’s a certainty that he at least plans to get himself re-elected in 2024.
As for the article, it’s simply not viable as of now, too much had changed since then. There are two political observers that I’ve used to listened to that had great sources in almost every big political institution in Russia, Pertsov & Gaaza. They’ve had a podcast together where they’ve discussed the behind-the-scenes stuff on every major decision. After the 24th they’ve released one last episode, stating that their profession is dead, Russian politics is dead and we now only have one actor in this mess, Vladimir Putin.
There’s a clear edit in that clip at 0:52, right in the middle of “Russia had no right to lose this operation in Ukraine”. I wonder if he had said “war” and they’ve had to edit that. It would make sense since you can’t “lose” an “operation” (by the logic of Russian language, you can only fail one).
He could choose to make someone else president at some point, which of course doesn't mean he cedes any power.
Which begs the question whether he would agree to 'step down' if negotiations ever reach the point of agreeing Russian defeat.
You want the Hollywood ending of all the good guys saving the day, that's why it doesn't feel right.
We've done all we can do and will continue to do exactly that. Anything beyond what we've already done will mean we risk a lot more for everyone.
As much as I don't want any more Ukrainians to die or be displaced, it's either them or the whole world. What would you rather do?
You know things have gone terribly wrong when the propagandists are being censored.Both scenarios are unlikely. He had already tried the first scenario with Medvedev and ended up feeling too threatened. As for him stepping down... it's simply impossible, simply because once he's not in complete control, he's vulnerable. And he doesn't want to be vulnerable.
You want the Hollywood ending of all the good guys saving the day, that's why it doesn't feel right.
We've done all we can do and will continue to do exactly that. Anything beyond what we've already done will mean we risk a lot more for everyone.
As much as I don't want any more Ukrainians to die or be displaced, it's either them or the whole world. What would you rather do?
Protecting people/refugees in the West is hardly a Hollywood ending. It won't even affect the overall battle at all, never mind end it. It justs means we save a few more lives, that's really it.
Didn't they pass a law making former presidents immune from prosecution a few years ago?
Ouch… and Inside Donetsk Oblast, too.
Some people have to die, there's no resolution to this that means they don't.
As shitty as that is to the Ukrainians right now, would you rather the few or the many (relatively speaking)?
We wouldn't save any more lives by doing what you're suggesting, instead we'd put many more in the firing line.
Some people have to die, but we can definitely save those within our arms reach.
I'm not advocating we storm into Russia and give them a good beating (even though I now firmly believe we could), I simply think we could provide some measly missile protection for a small tiny bit of land on the furthest West reaches of Ukraine.
But NATO is clearly happy to watch them die unless they cross the border, so we'll just stick with that.
Technically yeah. Putin didn't hesitate much to change the constitution before, so...
Plus there's always Hague when you need it
What a stupid thing to say.
We can't save them, because if we tried to provide anything for those 40 miles Russia would take it as NATO aggression and then they go bigger. As others have said, why only those 40 miles? Why not 100? Why not the entire country?
Surely you must see the problem here?
I don't think anybody except Putin is happy to see them die, nobody in NATO will be happy at all, what an absurd thing to say.
We can't do more than we have/are doing, we're at the red line. We're already doing an incredible amount, even if you won't recognise it.
I have just watched Zelensky's interview to independent Russian journalists in Russian language. 92 minutes of my life well spent. He really is a true leader and smart man.
We can't go any further in than the radar range of our anti air defences would allow. There is no way to head further East unless we put boots on the ground. In the West, we can provide some minimal protection from our side of the border.
The Ukrainians are asking why can't we do more every day. When I ask myself 'Have we done everything we possibly could?', little things like this convince me more and more that the answer is 'no'.
We don't even have the balls to say to Putin: 'We are not putting boots on the ground or shoot down your planes, but any missile that fall within our radar range will be intercepted.'
We can't even muster the courage to say that.
The next Russian leader needs to a woman. They need to break boundaries and modernise their way of thinking & acting. The old ways are dead and lead to global isolation
If they're in radar range they're still in Ukrainian territory though aren't they?
You realise if we shot down a few, he rolls out the nukes right? He's said as much, however much bluster that is, that's the cost of getting involved like you want to.
It's not Putin or a lack of balls making us scared, it's nuclear annihilation. That's the only reason we've not rolled up to Moscow right now and demanded they serve his head on a silver platter.
If you want us all to die, then by all means continue to feel we haven't done enough.
We've reacted perfectly, the fact you want more says more about you than it does about the west. You want the fight for whatever silly reason.
I completely understand the fear of nuclear annihilation. Everyone's scared of it. But to be paralysed into utter inaction by that fear? This is something that Putin exactly wants as he salami slices Europe into pieces.
And this fear is also why I increasingly believe NATO won't do much if the Baltic states get invaded. No one wants a nuclear war and the Baltic states, like Ukraine, are not important enough to risk one.
The first sentence is also the reason Russia will not go near the Baltic states. NATO absolutely has to invoke Article 5 (I believe it will) and do whatever is necessary should its territory be attacked.
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.