McGrathsipan
Dawn’s less famous husband
Is Russia going to pay to rebuild the country they have just smashed!
I doubt it.Is Russia going to pay to rebuild the country they have just smashed!
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.Russia already ran a referendum that gave this result
For Russia to now say there needs to be a free referendum with international oversight so that the result is legitimate would not on call into question the legitimacy of their previous referendum but other elections in Russia
So I'm pretty sure that would be a Defcon 1 type red line
What happened in the last Belarusian elections showed the danger of a dictator presuming the result will be in their favour.I mean, I don't get this. If a free referendum in Crimea is guaranteed to choose Russia over Ukraine, then why not accept it? It will also give the Kremlin the democratic legitimacy it seeks.
It bled so much you could briefly get 200 Rubles for a Pound just now.The Ruble sure is bleeding again.
Yes - my gut fee is that if its a case ofI 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.
I said it earlier, he's a one-trick pony.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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?How free would it be given that all Russian controlled territory is marinating in wall to wall Goebels style pro-Putin propaganda.
Putin would have to fall, the Ukrainians would then have to set in motion a timeline (let's say one year) for locals to decide their future based on a credible and transparent referendum that is free from any outside influence.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.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?
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.95% of the prepared combat force for this invasion, not all of the Russian military. He may choose to mobilize more troops to send to Ukraine, though I doubt it.
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).So if I understand what you’re saying, you believe Russia is facing complete defeat in the near future? 95% of his forces involved, no reserves, no possibility of further escalation etc.
I believe this is wishful thinking, but I really hope I’m wrong.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.Well there you go ... if you want to put a price in human life it seems its about half your gas bill
Interesting post.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.
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 involvedAt 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.I'm not sure if they are that focused on Kyiv. Biggest goal is the south and Odessa. As you mentioned even if they breach the capital, maintaining control of it would be monumental task and they need to concentrate a lot of manpower there alone.
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 incongruenceWell, 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.
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.If Russia do fall back, does Ukraine try to take Crimea back?
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.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.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.
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.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?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date