Yeah there are loads of different ways to make batteries, just because the current favoured design would be difficult to do due to e.g. limited cobalt supplies, doesn't mean you can't make enough batteries. And in fairness, people are investing in new mines for these exact reasons. The market is there so people are working on ways to supply 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.
Yeah there are loads of different ways to make batteries, just because the current favoured design would be difficult to do due to e.g. limited cobalt supplies, doesn't mean you can't make enough batteries. And in fairness, people are investing in new mines for these exact reasons. The market is there so people are working on ways to supply it.
Peter Zeihan, DC think tank geopolitics policy advisor who I've been studying since I discovered him recently, says that Russia intend to take land in the west until they control the two gaps that are defensible, the Polish gap and the one in Romania, meaning they intend to take half of Poland and all of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Ukraine and Moldova, and part of Romania. For him, mobilization is inevitable, and being he's one of the few people who predicted invasion I'm willing to give him more attention than most.
I think Putin is waiting for the right political and propaganda moment to mobilize. That propaganda show I keep seeing clips of, with that horrible hag and the duma member who masturbates to nuclear explosion videos, has begun to mention their intention to go further than Ukraine. Interestingly Finland is not due for invasion, as the border is considered defensible. The country has been invaded 50 times, so the paranoia does make some sense. It will be a historic moment when they mobilize, they will need to frame it as necessary, so they may need to push themselves to the breaking point in Ukraine to justify mobilization to their population (i won't call them citizens because they aren't, they're subjects).
Then you have to consider Putin is forcing Ukranians in occupied territories to fight for him, and them dying may be seen as a plus for the Kremlin. Tactics may become more careful when its Russian conscripts dying. This is perhaps a small factor, however.
The country is run by the Mafia, doesn't tend to make for rational, peaceful policy. I wonder if Putin is really in charge because he certainly used to be a puppet for the St. Petersburg crowd and Semion Mogelvich, though no one knows if he's really still on top. This Panorama special is quite good.
It apparently it means we're waiting on technology to be able to do it, Zeihan wants to see a 100x increase in funding for battery technology advances that would allow for a full transition. We could start today if the technology was ready.
I'm sure the money is flowing as on today, at least.
That will never happen.
I thought it was more about limited lithium supply and China sits on most of it.
No, I don't think it will, and neither does Zeihan. At this point its clear that NATO would annihilate Russia, and in a way this is more worrying, because it means the Russians will only have the options of retreating or using nuclear weapons. The potential for escalation would be high, at best.
Yep - it's total pie in the sky. NATO planes would destroy any and all invading forces within 24 - 48 hours.
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.
Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war
@ DT12 13 days left for your prediction to come true of Russia taking all of the Luhansk region. How many of these days will be used up in first taking Severodonetsk?
It is still plausible though. Russia are finally concentratng their forces and their firepower in a way they did not bother to for months. And the Ukrainian army could still withdraw to shorter lines.
We shall see. Personally I don't think it is plausible, not least because even if they take Severodonetsk, Lysychansk is well defended and sits on high ground overlooking a river that Russian forces coming from Severodonetsk would need to somehow cross using pontoons, all whilst under artillery fire.
They could try to take Lysychansk from the south instead, but still need to actually get there, all whilst advancing under artillery fire. And even then they'd be fighting uphill.
The point at which Russia goes wide on this, is the point at which NATO will stop caring about what escalatory signals it sends to the Russians. Russia would make a very serious mistake confusing NATO restraint with NATO weakness. Russia would be mad to take the risk that NATO has lost its ability to deter, although I am sure that some idiots in Russia think that.
The Joe Pesci voice aside, this is a solid interview with Stephen Kotkin.
Even though I understand the feeling for the ones that have been insulted personally, I don't think we should be saying "hah, you predicted X would happen and it didn't happen, therefore you are a liar/fascist/sheep/whatever". There's a propaganda war coming along with the actual war. We're not experts. We've all been fed crap from leaders and media at some point. Most of us are trying to make the best analysis with the (biased or unbiased) info that we get in London, Munich, Santiago, Moscow or Saint Petersburg. My understanding so far is:
-Russia's plan A (quick invasion) and B (long siege) on Kyiv failed. Plan C's success (get the valuable land and coastline and park the bus) is yet to see, but it looks like a stalemate from now. "Ukraine/Russia will win" chants look premature.
-Just as US/EU economic sanctions have failed to make a short term impact in the war or in Putin, it's unlikely that the impact the EU gets in oil/gas shortage and prices will be significant enough for them to change course. A part of Europe understand that they are in an existential war (Lithuannia crowdfunding an attack drone says it all), most of the rest sees it as a war on their institutions and way of living.
-Time is not in Russia's side for two reasons: they would eventually feel the heat of economic/trade war before the EU, and money/resources get renewed faster on the other side. Therefore they need a lot of resolve to try and end this soon, and that's why a lot of their messaging has been about this war being an existential threat for Russia (spoiler: it's not).
-Considering all of the above and adding that this war IS an existential threat for Ukraine and therefore they're not gonna be easily swayed to negotiate just for economic pressure, Russia's only chance would be to esentially kill the last man standing before their forces or resolve collapses. Ukraine knows that and is trying to fight in a way that minimizes casualties, even when it sometimes costs land. Therefore, attrition war.
PS: Fence sitters tend to be the short term winners in most wars, but that doesn't mean they'll win long term (Austria-Hungary or Spain are good examples of that). Even China won't be particularly happy with the current situation, considering their plans on Taiwan.
-Russia's plan A (quick invasion) and B (long siege) on Kyiv failed. Plan C's success (get the valuable land and coastline and park the bus) is yet to see, but it looks like a stalemate from now. "Ukraine/Russia will win" chants look premature.
-Just as US/EU economic sanctions have failed to make a short term impact in the war or in Putin, it's unlikely that the impact the EU gets in oil/gas shortage and prices will be significant enough for them to change course. A part of Europe understand that they are in an existential war (Lithuannia crowdfunding an attack drone says it all), most of the rest sees it as a war on their institutions and way of living.
-Time is not in Russia's side for two reasons: they would eventually feel the heat of economic/trade war before the EU, and money/resources get renewed faster on the other side. Therefore they need a lot of resolve to try and end this soon, and that's why a lot of their messaging has been about this war being an existential threat for Russia (spoiler: it's not).
-Considering all of the above and adding that this war IS an existential threat for Ukraine and therefore they're not gonna be easily swayed to negotiate just for economic pressure, Russia's only chance would be to esentially kill the last man standing before their forces or resolve collapses. Ukraine knows that and is trying to fight in a way that minimizes casualties, even when it sometimes costs land. Therefore, attrition war.
PS: Fence sitters tend to be the short term winners in most wars, but that doesn't mean they'll win long term (Austria-Hungary or Spain are good examples of that). Even China won't be particularly happy with the current situation, considering their plans on Taiwan.
This is precisely why Putin can't win this. Attempting to "end it soon" wouldn't do that because the Ukrainians won't stop fighting until the Russians have been fully expelled from Ukrainian land, so Putin can't claim a few more towns in Donbas (in addition to decimated Mariupol) and then abruptly call for a peace deal, because the Ukrainians won't stop fighting as long as Russians are in Ukraine - especially given that they have a seemingly endless supply of weapons from the west. That would therefore not be an "out" for Putin. On the other hand, he doesn't have the resources to take all of Ukraine either, so he is now in a lose/lose scenario that will only exacerbate as sanctions continue to act like battery acid on domestic Russian life.
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.
Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war
He's the hero of the original Donbas campaign, so its likely he's broadcasting Russian shortcomings this time around as a way to sound the alarm to Russian officials that they need to improve or else face the consequences of losing.
Last edited:
I forgot to add that IMO the news or gossips about Putin's health (or lack of) could be in a separate thread as it's getting more and more evident that this is not only Putin's war and that his eventual "retire" doesn't necessarily ends it.
The interesting bit here is there are apparently significant swaths of land in southern Ukraine were neither side are in control (probably because there's nothing there).
If I were "scared" I would simply take my family and move to my native England, it would be very easy for me to do that.
As for your post, you may well be correct but I obviously don't think so. Again, look at how the messaging from the West has been shifting over the last month. Back in March and April everyone was gung-ho for supporting Ukraine "for as long as it takes". In my opinion this was driven by the belief that Russia's war was being so ineptly carried out that Putin would be suffocated into a quick defeat ("there'll be nothing left of the Russian economy by June!"). But that is not going to happen. Back in March the New York Times was one of the biggest proponents of the idea that America should give all the money and weapons Ukraine needs in order to 'win'. Fast forward a couple of months and now we're getting this, from the editorial board:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html
In addition, more and more articles on the American news sites are starting to mention "the midterms" when writing about America's financial support of the war, as in "Biden needs to be wary of the midterms". Why? If, as Pelosi and Schumer and all the rest keep saying, "America will stand with our Ukrainian friends until victory is won" (sound familiar Afghanis?) then why do the midterms matter? We know the answer of course. America's debt is currently about 130% of GDP, prices are through the roof, gas prices have doubled, Biden has countless problems back in America, his ratings are subterranean and come November it is going to be increasingly difficult to explain to Americans why he's continuing to send billions of dollars to Ukraine. Especially when more people will be realising that this war has nothing to do with "defending Ukrainian democracy" or whatever other fatuous nonsense they've been saying about the reasons for this invasion. 'Zelenskiy' is saying he won't make any compromises and he won't even start negotiations until the Russian army has withdrawn to its pre-February 24th position. That is never going to happen. Therefore, unless the Biden Admin want to be exposed as liars, it means they're going to have to fund Ukraine's war indefinitely. And as I've suggested, all those who are hoping the printing press will continue to just print more money to pay for it all are going to be sorely disappointed. With everyone from the governor of the Bank of England...
https://www.ft.com/content/0a8f0465-12ed-412b-94cb-571f9fb6f0d4
...to the CEO of JPMorgan Chase...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/01/jam...ricane-caused-by-the-fed-and-ukraine-war.html
...saying financial armageddon is on the way, and the Biden Admin making the blunder of calling it all a "Putin price hike" (well then why are you looking to extend it rather than press Zelenskiy to sue for peace?), continuing to fund Ukraine's war will be risky at best, political suicide at worst. Americans don't care about "Ukrainian freedom". They simply don't. The Americans (including in this thread) who are demanding Ukraine fight on to the last Ukrainian soldier and, ideally, the last European euro are doing so because this war is riveting entertainment for them, and because - an American trait - they don't believe that the bill will ever come. "Printing press go buuuuurrrrrr", right? Wrong. Not this time.
Put bluntly, everyone was adamant back in March that the West must bankroll Ukraine's push for total victory because it was believed that the sanctions would quickly cripple Putin's war machine. They haven't, and they won't. And that's why France and Germany have been trying to push 'Zelenskiy' to sue for peace, and why in the last few days even America has said they're going to consider Italy's 4-step proposal for a peaceful settlement (a month ago they dismissed any such talk out of hand). Without NATO boots on the ground (something Ukraine has been desperately trying to make happen), there is no realistic scenario where the Ukrainians win, and they will have to cede territory. Literally everyone in politics knows this, they're just afraid to say it because they see what happens to people (Kissinger for example) who do, they get the facile "Neville Chamberlain and Hitler!" nonsense.
Furthermore (to sum up my main point), an economic collapse is coming, but for Ukraine, not Russia. Ukraine lived on its heavy industry, its grain exports, and the transit fees for Russian oil and gas. All have now gone and Zelenskiy needs something like 10 billion dollars A MONTH only to keep his economy afloat, without even considering the war costs (sidebar - how much money are the billionaire Ukrainian oligarchs sending to Ukraine from their Swiss chateaus? The British taxpayers sent 300 million last month, how much did Zelenskiy's boss Kolomoiyskiy send?). Russia can still export its resources to the non-Western world whereas Ukraine is now wholly reliant on its new 'sponsor' from across the pond, and as many countries have experienced, the US is a very capricious 'sponsor'.
I'll post this link from today, but I'll add the acknowledgement that The Hill is not exactly first rate journalism (still a sounder source than Glaston's psychic friend though). Nevertheless I think it raises points that are worth considering:
https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...-win-a-public-relations-war-against-the-west/
Simultaneously, the heretofore skimpy and universally negative reporting of Putin’s intentions has begun to morph into a dawning perception that the Russian leader’s strategy of conquering a land bridge to Crimea and gaining a chokehold on the entire Ukrainian economy, via total control of the Black Sea coastline, is not quite as inept as previously reported.
Another element of the conventional wisdom now crumbling is the idea that the crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. and European Union nations would soon bring the Russian economy to its knees. Instead, there is evidence that the opposite may be occurring, with sanctions doing more damage to Western economies than to Russia’s. Far from being the “rubble” predicted by President Biden, the ruble hit a two-year high in May and Russian energy and agricultural exports were producing record high revenues, in large part because Europe and much of the rest of the world can’t do without them.
Related to these phenomena is the utter unreality of the war’s foundational myth — namely that the United States has rallied almost the entire world against a nearly totally isolated Russia. In truth, of the world’s 195 countries only 65 have agreed to join the American sanctions regime — meaning that 130 have refused, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, most of Asia, Africa and Latin America, countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world’s population.
Consider also that the nations the U.S. currently targets with sanctions represent a powerful bloc strongly opposing what they regard as America’s economic bullying. A striking example of the rejection of U.S. assumptions of dominance was a recent meeting of the world’s leading financial nations — the G-20 Summit — when the U.S. delegation walked out on a speech by a Russian delegate and only three of the other 19 delegations followed suit.
Last edited:
Enemy tongue: eastern Ukrainians reject their Russian birth language:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...krainians-reject-their-russian-birth-language
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...krainians-reject-their-russian-birth-language
Yikes, someone asked for the mask to come off and then it did.
I think if we're talking about masks coming off, this is a much better example:
Wow.. so much pro-surrender propaganda being spouted left right and centre lately. Russia must be running out of gas on the battlefield.
The more I hear the shouts for Ukraine to surrender, the better I rate their chances.
The more I hear the shouts for Ukraine to surrender, the better I rate their chances.
So any thoughts on how all of this ends? Back to the pre-invasion situation? Can Putin even afford that politically?
I posted a tweet here about 4939393 pages back of Western analysts predicting this could take years. 100 days into the invasion, it doesn't seem that outlandish anymore.
I posted a tweet here about 4939393 pages back of Western analysts predicting this could take years. 100 days into the invasion, it doesn't seem that outlandish anymore.
This whole post amounts to clutching at straws.
What a handful of newspaper articles say, and what the CEO of JPMorgan Chase thinks, doesn't amount to a hill of beans against the wider bedrock reality: the vast majority of the Western world has finally seen Russian fascism for what it is and recognised that an existential struggle is unfolding. This is why Finland and Sweden have applied to join NATO. This is why Denmark is signing up to the EU's defence programme. This is why large amounts of weapons and money are being sent to Ukraine - a process that the West can continue indefinitely if needed, because their combined economic power is vastly, vastly bigger than Russia's.
And who cares if "only" 65 countries have joined the sanctions regime? Those countries represent a huge proportion of the world's total economic power. And if you want to count countries, try counting the only four countries - North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, Belarus - that (apart from Russia itself) voted against condemning Russia's aggression in the UN vote in March.
You're living in fantasy land if you believe that Russia's economy isn't going to be devastated by the sanctions. And you're living in fantasy land if you believe that the ruble isn't being artificially propped up by various measures that can't continue indefinitely. Fast forward a year from now and - if Putin is still in power - the Russian economy will be collapsing around your ears.
Last edited:
It will end when there is a extended stalemate on the battleground, as it usually does. Right now it's still early days yet. Ukraine are yet to start using those shiny new MLRS and HIMARS.
However, I am quite certain the West won't provide any weapons more powerful than MLRS. If Ukraine cannot do it with these rockets, then the end will be nigh and the time to stalemate is probably around the horizon.
Last edited:
It could indeed go on for years. I don't see it ending unless Putin is removed from office - one way or another - and some new regime decides to pull back to the pre-invasion situation and blame the whole sorry mess on Putin.
There may be a time when Putin hangs on to the Donbass and Crimea and we end up in a stalemate, but without a peace agreement. At that point the Russia/Ukraine border could end up highly militarised with all sorts of weapons sent from Europe and the US to bolster the Ukrainian side.
Aye, Putin's only real way out of this is a negotiated ceasefire. We know they have a lot of influence among western media so these calls are only going to get louder.
France has shown itself to the rest of the democratic world that in time of crisis it is not a country that can be relied upon.
And I suspect much more interference in American and European politics too.
This is an 8-year regional conflict between 2 corrupt oligarchies and only on Planet Fatuous Bullshit does the narrative of "Putin invaded because he hates having a democracy on his border!" find a simple-minded audience. Your new hero Zelenskiy was wildly unpopular in Ukraine before the invasion because he's as bent as all the others who came before him:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...dent-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy
When governments feed this "Ukraine is fighting for all of Western democracy!" nonsense to credulous idiots they do so because it's been demonstrated to them time and time again that they can.
While you're here, this will sound like I'm taking the piss but I'm honestly not, I have a genuine question: have you asked your psychic friend how and when this war will end, or does he only do medical reports?
This is the calculus the US and other leading western states are likely banking on. Russia’s resources are increasingly limited as war and sanctions gradually erode them from within, whereas Ukrainian morale and resources from the west are virtually unlimited. So at some undefined point in the future, there will be a tipping point where Russian resolve collapses and Putin is either murdered or deposed from within.
It would also help if the Republican Party returned to their pre-Trump foreign policy positions too.
Wait ... wasn't it about liberating Ukraine which is ruled by Nazis ? I mean because of simple minded audience.
There is not even remotely an equivalence - moral or otherwise - between the Ukrainian government under Zelensky and Putin's regime. The fact that you can't or won't see this speaks volumes about your intelligence and honesty.
Russian has invaded Ukraine - not the other way around. Russia is razing Ukrainian cities to the ground - not the other way around. Russian troops are murdering and raping Ukrainians - not the other way around. Ukraine is not a fascist state, whilst Russia is well on the way towards becoming a fascist state.
Last edited:
Granted it's not quite your psychiс friend but I'm assuming you'll accept the United Nations' own OSCE as a source?
War crimes of the armed forces and security forces of Ukraine: torture and inhumane treatment
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf
That first photo is of a Ukrainian citizen tortured to death by the Ukrainian SBU back in 2014, when this conflict began. And from there you have 74 more pages of something other than "Putin invaded because he hates democracy!"