Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[nickm]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

1) Where is it stated by Putin that the pipeline / water issues are a principal cause of the war?
2) What are Ukraine's legal obligations to supply water to an areas taken from them and under Russian control?
3) What is illegal or wrong about Ukraine charging Russia for using its territory to transport gas?
4) Where has the American "military industrial complex" stated it owns half of Syria and who has stated it?
5) Where is the treaty agreement that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?
6) If Putin had invaded in a less murdery / ethnic cleansing way, would you defend that?

 

[TMDaines]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Spark]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

Crimea is Ukraine, currently occupied by Russia. Of course it gets cut off, what do you think would happen if the same happened anywhere else, including in Russia?

Ukraine is resource rich and that’s a massive motivation for Russia to annex the eastern regions, but there’s no hypocrisy in saying the key motivation for the Russians is to destroy the Ukrainian state because that’s literally what Putin has said. The only consistently dishonest actors have been the Russians. The sheer volume of lies that have come from them is astonishing and has served to simply cut them off from the main international stage. Even the Chinese are struggling to overtly support them, as much as they wish they could.

The rest of your post about Syria, “American military industrial complex”, America arming ISIS (what the feck), etc is just irrelevant and clutching at Kremlin sponsored straws to somehow rationalise why Russia is doing what its doing. End of the day, they’re wrong and have fecked it.

 

[UncleBob]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

What

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

America arming ISIS (what the feck)

Ignoring the rest of the OP, but this is true (and Al Qaeda).

Spoiler: .

Whatever the level of “intentionality” involved, ISIS was the recipient of the US-supported arms aid to the Syrian rebels, routed by the CIA through Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and other Mideast client states. The State Department and CIA were well aware that the Syrian rebels included many Islamic militants, including those linked to al-Qaeda, because it had previously employed many of these fighters in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya in 2011.

Originally established as Al Qaeda in Iraq during the eight years of warfare that followed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group only took the name ISIS in April 2013, long after it had built up significant strength in Syria as part of the US-backed rebel forces fighting the Assad regime.

In other words, as Biden admits, ISIS was created by the methods pursued by the US government and its allied reactionary regimes, both the Islamist government of Erdogan in Turkey and the Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Another confirmation of this relationship came in the form of a Washington Post report Sunday on the supposedly contradictory role of the sheikdom of Qatar, another of the Persian Gulf despotisms that is a client state of American imperialism. Qatar hosts the huge Al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters for US air operations in the region and the directing center of the air war in Syria and Iraq.

Only 20 miles from the base is the Grand Mosque in the Qatari capital, Doha, which “has served as a key outpost for al-Qaeda-linked rebels fighting the Syrian regime,” the Post noted, including the al-Nusra Front, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, which was formerly part of ISIS until a split last year.

America created ISIS through its actions in Iraq, then funded Al Qaeda and other various terrorist groups against Asad in Syria


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

 

[UpWithRivers]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

Ive been saying this since day 1 and I havent a clue why no one else can see this. Its seems obvious. Only now there are some stories saying that he will annex Ukraine and take the west side and connect it to the Crimea to form a land corridor. Well no sht. But I disagree that Zelenski should have re-opened the canal. I mean the Russians invaded and took Crimea. Then you give them the water. Then what? Give them the west of Ukraine? Then what? Its basically just being a Russian puppet. If some fkers invade your country you do not bend over and do as they say.

Also Ukraine joining Nato means jack sht in terms of security to Russia. Its a smoke screen. Firstly NATO will never invade Russia unless it was under imminent threat because you know nukes and sht. And secondly if Nato wanted to take out Russia they could do it even if Ukraine is not part of NATO. And lastly its not up to Russia who joins Nato or not. Its called democracy.

 

[dal]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that NATO has already shown a limited ceiling to act in under the threat of nuclear war, while Russia has shown an unlimited thirst for aggression which does not exclude nuclear war. The stronger will probably wins.

Agreed.

 

[UpWithRivers]

1) Where is it stated by Putin that the pipeline / water issues are a principal cause of the war?
2) What are Ukraine's legal obligations to supply water to an areas taken from them and under Russian control?
3) What is illegal or wrong about Ukraine charging Russia for using its territory to transport gas?
4) Where has the American "military industrial complex" stated it owns half of Syria and who has stated it?
5) Where is the treaty agreement that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?
6) If Putin had invaded in a less murdery / ethnic cleansing way, would you defend that?

No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with

 

[stefan92]

No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with

Still oil and gas is something different as "our people are dying from thirst". Making that case absolutely looks like a good and morally acceptable reason for action.

 

[Boavista]

No Zelensky appearance (pre-recorded or else) at the Academy Awards. That is just pathetic.

Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.

Apparently this year's host, Wanda Sykes, had this to say about the idea, and I tend to agree:

Schumer had previously expressed a desire for the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to appear while Sean Penn said he would smelt his Oscars if this didn’t happen. Sykes was asked about this idea on the red carpet. “You know, in Hollywood, we can get a little full of ourselves and we think that what we’re doing is all so important,” she said to Variety. “I understand that, yeah, what we do reaches a lot people and we can persuade a lot of people, but it’s also [respectful] to just know your lane. You know what I’m saying? Know your lane.”

It sends a bit of a weird message to speak in front of all of these different countries' parliaments, to then speak at the academy awards. I don't think anyone who watches those need persuasion, or make a difference. And I'm not sure he'd be doing himself any favours with the Russian public who are probably the most important people to persuade. But if he actually wanted to speak at the oscars, and the academy rejected it, that's also strange.

 

[MuFc_1992]

No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with

But why would Ukraine not make this arguement? It would make absolute sense for Ukrainians to fight for resources that is absolutely theirs and could pave the way for a prosperous Ukraine. Also, Ukraine's gas reserves would allow Europe to reduce their dependency on Russian gas thus neutering any remaining claim Russia has to being a global superpower. I believe that to be the primary cause of the Invasion.

 

[Simbo]

Zelenskyy on trying to save both people and territory: "This is difficult. But what's important is that the decision is made together with the people.

Just take a look at the people in Kherson who waved their hands in the middle of the streets in order to stop tanks. They decided to stand up. I could not have ordered them not to do it or to throw themselves under the tank treads. I will support the people's decisions."

So he is trying to understand what the people want by the people's actions and keeps that in mind/lets it guide him while making decisions.

He's fighting Russia with democracy at every opportunity. I love it, its the strongest weapon against them.

 

[Stactix]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

Justifying this war in ways even the Russians have yet to. That's impressive and terrifying at the same time.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

I don't know what you take, but it looks a lot stronger than hard drugs.

 

[Pintu]

The Crimea water crisis is not a new issue, it is been discussed in Russia ever since Ukraine cut it. And it was used in Russia's internal propaganda among other motives behind the invasion.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TMDaines]

The Crimea water crisis is not a new issue, it is been discussed in Russia ever since Ukraine cut it. And it was used in Russia's internal propaganda among other motives behind the invasion.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The irony is that Soviet Russia couldn’t even be fecked building the canal and establishing a reliable water supply when they controlled it. Only when it became part of the Ukrainian SSR was the canal built and the fertility of Crimea increased.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Russians dying at nearly twice the daily rate of British soldiers during WWII:

https://ibb.co/1nbnXsd

 

[TMDaines]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[frostbite]

Mariupol has been destroyed. The Russians are shelling the city for a full month now. Many buildings are in ruins, civilians have been killed. This does not serve any military purposes, it has only one goal: to terrorize the Ukrainians so that they give up defending their country.

Isn't this bombardment criminal? And if it is, who is responsible? Putin alone? What about the other Russians? I know that there is a police state in Russia, but is this enough to absolve them of all responsibility? After all, the majority supported Putin while he was building this police state. And the majority of Russians still support Putin today. For example, there are no large protests today. Do you remember the protests in London for the Iraq invasion by Bush? Did you see anything like this in Moscow this past month? And of course England did not bombard Basrah for a month, and they did not try to cause as many civilian casualties as possible. The West did a lot of bad things, but nothing like the destruction of Mariupol, and yet the Russian citizens do not participate to any widespread protests. Isn't this odd? What do you make of this?

 

[Spark]

Ignoring the rest of the OP, but this is true (and Al Qaeda).

Spoiler: .

America created ISIS through its actions in Iraq, then funded Al Qaeda and other various terrorist groups against Asad in Syria


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

Right, ISIS is a disastrous consequence of terrible foreign policy decisions. Something that is actually admitted by Biden himself in the article you quoted (so not exactly being denied at the highest levels).

America/NATO/the West haven't actively armed ISIS considering they have been running bombing campaigns against them since their inception (including dropping the MOAB on them in Afghanistan).

Can say the same about the Russians arming every terrorist organisation in the world through the proliferation of the AK.

 

[Krakenzero]

There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.

Then Putin must be a really bad negotiator, because none of its 7 negotiation demands (IIRC Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Demilitarization, Denazification, Neutrality, Russian language) even remotely take care of that issue. They can get all 7 of them and still have Crimea without water.

Anyway, there's a chance this could be the next goalpost for saving face domestically: to ensure water distribution for the previoulsy occupied land.

 

[Gehrman]

Russians dying at nearly twice the daily rate of British soldiers during WWII:

https://ibb.co/1nbnXsd

I hope their comrades are thinking for what?

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Spot on

 

[Pintu]

The irony is that Soviet Russia couldn’t even be fecked building the canal and establishing a reliable water supply when they controlled it. Only when it became part of the Ukrainian SSR was the canal built and the fertility of Crimea increased.

Just another example of Soviet Russia being the real enemy of the people under its rule, while abusing the concept of "enemy of the people"/ "enemy of the workers ".

 

[nickm]

Yes it's not our war to fight, and yes therefore I can accept no boots or planes. But surely we are, at least, big and strong enough to stand up to Putin in the name of whatever that is good and protect a few civilians within our arms reach?

We're not going on the offensive, we're staying exactly where we are and protecting a few innocent lives within our capability.

If NATO extended any form of a security shield into Ukraine from Poland, Russia would see, not unreasonably, those Polish based NATO radars / missiles as legitimate military targets.

 

[spiriticon]

If NATO extended any form of a security shield into Ukraine from Poland, Russia would see, not unreasonably, those Polish based NATO radars / missiles as legitimate military targets.

Then we leave the ball in Putin's court to decide if he wants to attack NATO territory directly. If the answer is yes, we don't have to react immediately to start WW3, but we then know how far he is willing to go and that the Baltic states are definitely in danger. If the answer is no, we start to have a clearer idea of Putin's red lines in this war. Either way, we gain information.

I might not be an expert on the double or triple bluff this sort of situation needs, but at some point you have to resist and out-think the madman across the table.

 

[GlastonSpur]

 

[Van Piorsing]

If this is Bayraktar, it just once again proved, it's on similar level to Sentinel / Predator drone and that Israeli one, forgot the name.

 

[nickm]

Then we leave the ball in Putin's court to decide if he wants to attack NATO territory directly. If the answer is yes, we don't have to react immediately to start WW3, but we then know how far he is willing to go and that the Baltic states are definitely in danger. If the answer is no, we start to have a clearer idea of Putin's red lines in this war. Either way, we gain information.

I might not be an expert on the double or triple bluff this sort of situation needs, but at some point you have to resist and out-think the madman across the table.

I'd argue that at this point, we need to do is let Putin keep making his mistakes, and the way to do that is to keep denying him strategic options. Widening the theatre of conflict, which is what your proposal would do, gives him such options. I get that it looks like Putin gets to choose his actions while we constrain ours, but we're doing that partly to deny him political room for manoeuvre, and in truth, his choosing isn't winning him anything. So who cares what it looks like - let him keep digging his holes.

That said, I do think the West/US/NATO needs to consider what it wants the future to look like after this - what is the endgame here?

 

[spiriticon]

I'd argue that at this point, all we need to do is let Putin keep making his mistakes, and the way to do that is to keep denying him strategic options. Widening the theatre of conflict, which is what your proposal would do, gives him such options. I get that it looks like Putin gets to choose his actions while we constrain ours, but we're doing that partly to deny him political room for manoeuvre.

Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that his military is so utterly incapable that it has given us more flexibility to remain constrained, and that gives us a slight political upper hand for now. We need to use that advantage and squeeze him as much as we can.

But my worry is that this is all irrelevant in the end because his will is simply stronger than ours. I fear he will just force his way to a favourable outcome in Ukraine for now, then force us to lift sanctions so that he can rebuild his army for Round 2. If he is allowed a Round 2, it will probably be a much better job than what he is doing now. We cannot allow that.

 

[botond]

ist true kadyrov was made general ?

 

[nickm]

Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that his military is so utterly incapable that it has given us more flexibility to remain constrained, and that gives us a slight political upper hand for now. We need to use that advantage and squeeze him as much as we can.

But my worry is that this is all irrelevant in the end because his will is simply stronger than ours. I fear he will just force his way to a favourable outcome in Ukraine for now, then force us to lift sanctions so that he can rebuild his army for Round 2. If he is allowed a Round 2, it will probably be a much better job than what he is doing now. We cannot allow that.

It doesn't matter how strong his will is, if he's bleeding, surrounded by sharks and with no weapons. He's not rebuilding without external help and he he can't force us to lift sanctions. Russia is screwed.

 

[Water Melon]

ist true kadyrov was made general ?

Looks like it is.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[spiriticon]

It doesn't matter how strong his will is, if he's bleeding, surrounded by sharks and with no weapons. He's not rebuilding without external help and he he can't force us to lift sanctions.

I hope you right about that. The UK government is already talking about lifting sanctions on withdrawal of troops, which makes me quite uneasy. We need to pin the fecker down to the ground for a good 10 years if not forever.

 

[Simbo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Neutrality (provisionally) accepted as previously reported, demilitarization still a contentious point, and Zelensky talking about reaching a compromise on the Donbas region and refusing to try retake Russian held territories. Next round of talks 28th-30th March. Progress.

Some progress maybe... you should probably watch the interview yourself though and listen to Zelensky of you want a true sense of where these negotiations are up to. He does not give off a great impression of 'progress' in these talks. Your man Ivan leaves a few relevant points out of his thread, all his credentials getting in the way maybe.

The demilitarization is hardly "contentious", it will quite simply never be up for discussion. To quote Zelensky - "That is incomprehensible to me, we would not sit at the table if that is what is being discussed".

Any non-NATO or neutral promise would be a constitutional change, he states this would take at least a year. Multiple referendum's required, they could offer Russia guarantee's, all Russian troops would have to leave Ukraine before this process could begin and guarantees signed by 3rd party countries.

Non-Nuclear guarantee would need to be a far more serious agreement than the Budapest Memorandum.

He rules out taking back pre-Feb 24th occupied terriories with military means but he's not conceding them, alludes to continued diplomatic efforts. He also however issues a subtle warning that this is his opinion on the matter and that future elected leaders may not hold that view.

Basically nothing would happen unless/until Russian forces are back behind pre 24/2 lines and he avoids the question about what if the referendums say no. A line of dialog is always good but unless something dramatic changes on the ground there's no point paying much attention to these negotiations.

 

[nickm]

I hope you right about that. The UK government is already talking about lifting sanctions on withdrawal of troops, which makes me quite uneasy. We need to pin the fecker down to the ground for a good 10 years if not forever.

Well I agree with that. I can see some sanctions being lifted as an incentive for a withdrawal but there has to be a reorientation that constrains Russia's power, especially weaponry and gas.

 

[Ventura]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Of course people are debating possible outcomes and solutions, it doesn't mean we decide for Ukraine but there will obviously be tons of opinions and in the internet age everybody will voice their opinion on any matter and you just can't silence that.

 

[GlastonSpur]

... I do think the West/US/NATO needs to consider what it wants the future to look like after this - what is the endgame here?

I'd imagine it'd centre around an overall recognition that the invasion has been a watershed moment - that Russia is now to be very firmly seen as an enemy state that must be crippled and undermined in every possible way until - if ever - it becomes a genuinely democratic, westward looking nation.

This means:

* Maintain current sanctions for as long as Putin remains in power, crippling the Russian economy and its ability to replace lost military equipment and weapons.
* Continue to supply large amounts of weapons into whatever areas of Ukraine that remain under the control of the Ukrainian government.
* Funnel lots of money into Ukraine to help them rebuild, possibly in part by seizing some or all of the $300 billion of currently frozen Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves.
* Refuse to recognise as Russian any areas annexed by Putin (including Crimea) unless the Zelenskyy government decides to first offer such recognition.
* Bring Ukraine into the EU (but not NATO), assuming that nations like like Hungary (under Orban) don't veto this.
* Increase NATO defence spending for the forseeable future and move more units into front-line countries.
* Massive increases in defence spending by European nations in particular - as a hedge against the possibility that Trump (or someone like him) could regain the American Presidency and then pull out of NATO.
* Accept into NATO any additional European nations that might wish to now join - e.g. Finland, Sweden etc.
* Rapid movement in Europe towards zero need for Russian energy supplies (coal, oil, gas etc)
* Actively encourage and support separatist movements in every single nation/region within Russia's sphere of influence - thus maximising the drain on Russian military resources.

 

[Simbo]

Damn.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date