Those who dont have it, would likely disagree,
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) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Bizarre last page or so, I guess not much actual war news.
How difficult this is going to be?
At least from the outside, it looks like over the last couple of decades or so Putin's hold over all levels of authority inside Russia is complete, down even to the local 'dog catcher' level. If this perception is correct then everyone on that list, at every level, owes their position to Putin, if he falls, they all fall.
Self interests will take precedent, how can western policy make the necessary changes and how long will it take, plus how many generations of Ukrainians will have to pass to obliterate the anger and the need for revenge that will follow on from what is happening now.
These are not two countries separated by distance, these are next door neighbours, sharing a similar ancestry, language and in many cases direct family connections, this is a war within an extended family setting and such wars are notoriously vicious and long lasting and unforgiving and can turn into years, if not centuries of feuding thereafter.
How can Western policy decisions will make any real impact, especially when other issues like 'saving the planet', will take centre stage around the world and especially in the West, long before any real resolution occurs in Ukraine.
Think update on the actual fight on the ground is Russian full scale retreat around Kyiv and supposedly about to launch a new attack in the East. In the South attack supposedly ‘stalled’. MOD updates all focused now on Russians regrouping around Donbas.
I believe that ship has sailed for them. The Ukrainians can leave a relatively smaller force behind to defend the roads to Kyiv now, and with the losses the Russians have sustained, they’re going to have to redeploy the bulk of the remaining combat capable BTGs they have around Kyiv to the front in Luhansk & Donbas if they want to make any headway there.
But I'm not telling you to name a man. I'm simply explaining to you why your whole proposal is a catch 22 and unworkable and if such things were workable, even by governments, we would have done it with Castro, Chavez/Maduro, Kim, Hitler, Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad etc. etc.
No one with significant position of power inside a regime will topple the regime. Because once the power of the regime goes, that person has literally no protection. Just a bunch of privately offered guarantees that could very easily be rescinded. If someone topples the leader that would be for power-grab reasons, but they would just take charge of the reigns of the regime instead. Likely become more autocratic in the process. No sane person who is part of that regime would topple Putin and then steer the country towards proper democracy, when they could get ousted from power and then prosecuted for their role in the regime/wars. Your suggestion is unrealistic to begin with.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The West have frozen $300 billion worth of Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves, so whether or not Putin entertains the notion of reparations is ultimately beyond his control. We could simply transfer the whole lot to Ukraine.
Russia can't fund a future war without money - making them pay to rebuild Ukraine deprives them of that money. There can never be a relatively free Russia until Putin and the ultra-nationalists are gone from power. Until then they will remain an enemy state that needs to be reduced by all means possible short of direct combat.
There is no parallel between Germany (and the end of WWII) and Russia during the the cold war. The former was a defeated nation with a new, pro-Western government. The latter was not defeated and remained very unfriendly to the West.
There is however a parallel to WW1. Germany was forced to pay and this fueled the rise of the Nazis and ensured that the public was open to take revenge for the Versailles treaty and therefore was part of the reason to start WW2. So @TwoSheds concerns are absolutely valid.
It's literally already happened in Russia with Stalin. The change has to come from within and it has to be correctly incentivised and supported from without.
If Russia make that miscalculation then its the Americans fault. If you are perceived as weak and unwilling to show strength against an enemy, then you shouldn't be surprised when they stop seeing you as a valid threat.
And in the end, Germany became a pro-Western democracy.
Russia is now an enemy state that is already in the grip of fascists. They don't need "revenge" reasons to start wars, they have already started them.
There will never be an end to Russian aggression until Putin and the the ultra-nationalists are no longer in power, however long that takes. Until then, Russia needs to be reduced in every way possible short of direct military combat .... squeezed and squeezed and squeezed until it internally combusts, leading either to to fundamental change in government or a break-up into civil war as some regions secede.
Russia needs to be deprived of as much money as possible, because otherwise it's just money they'll use to fund more war.
It doesn’t help that content that has scenes of where the war has been are inevitably deleted as bodies are everywhere, and that much of the more timely discussion got moved to another thread on Russia’s war crimes. It’s somewhat difficult to share and discuss things here now.
The Nazi party is already in power in Russia though and already commiting it's genocide. If we had put sanctions and froze Nazi Germany's foreign assets/funds/banks from day 1, then they likely can't build any significant army. That is what is being attempted here.
Russia no longer have the ability to produce tanks because they can't source the components. Their economy is falling apart in all manner of sectors. There is speculation that they will not last as a state if these sanctions remain in place. That creates it's own set of problems, ie the anarchy of a nuclear power.
Putin has already assassinated any likely potential replacement dictator because he knows he's ripe for the taking. These sanctions weaken Russia and weaken Putin. The Russian Army is likely to be decimated for a long time after this war
It only became a pro-Western democracy after another world war, though.
I think Russia won't be able to be aggressive any longer once this war is over. And Putin's focus will change from an imperialist mindset to clinging to power. I'm by no means an expert on geopolitics but from my point of view it seems reasonable to expect Russia to focus much more on their inner politics in the future. Their military will be in shambles after this war and they have no resources to really repare it to it's previous standard which wasn't even high enough to beat Ukraine. On the geopolitical stage, Russia now has lost a) the complete goodwill of the international society and b) the threat of conventional warfare. I doubt Russia can intimidate Finland and Sweden into not joining NATO after what has happened. Putin will probably tighten his grip on the population even further to prevent uprisings. Russia might go down the path of North Korea now, just on a larger scale. Only that it might be much harder to control a) such a large country and b) a population that actually had contact to Western society and access to the internet while their standards of living detoriate.
On a side note, many people expect Russia to occupy Donbas and other Ukrainian areas rich of resources. I wonder what Russia even plans to do with this. If the sanctions remain in place, their supply is already to large for the demand they can expect or am I wrong?
Interesting overview of Russia’s economy by NY Times, not sure I can post as subscription but takeaways are.
- Strong economy in short term given energy price spikes - supposedly Russia heading for a record surplus in their ‘current account’ this year. However, extremely weak long term
- At first glance the surplus seems good but a large part of it is because they’ve stopped spending as much i.e. far less going out of the country than previously as they prop up the rouble.
- Biggest issue for Russia is the rouble is no longer convertible given they have shut down the free market and placed restrictions on exchanges but they can’t just insulate it forever.
- Inflation is rising, they have large debts that must be paid in foreign currencies and foreign companies are withdrawing en masse. Aleksashenko (ex deputy chairman of Russian Central Bank) likens it to 1994 just after USSR collapse.
- Brain drain - more a long term factor but still an important one.
Yes, I think that is fair.
After initiating the biggest war in humanity's history.
And Russia did use the public ressentiment to explain this war as well as its entire foreign politics of the past 20 years.
All those resources need to be extracted first, Donbas, Luhansk etc. had some (mostly outdated) industry infrastructure before 2014 (metal, coil, gas) but it's been destroyed since then. I doubt that a lot will be left of Mariupol and other areas that they'll try to keep under their control. You'll need tens of billions $ to reindustrialize Eastern Ukraine, considering that you don't only need to build fabrics & mines, you need to rebuild towns with their entire infrastructure and also to get the population somewhere. I doubt that it's a realistic scenario considering that the Russian economy is already in free fall, it's not the time for long-term investments of such a scale.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Some interesting implications of Moscow's strategy to do war without really declaring war.
I get what you're saying and don't mean to dismiss it out of hand, it's a valid element of deterrence. But at the same time you could argue that just the US maintaining its very large military in all 3 areas (largest air force, largest navy, close to largest army) is a true expression of commitment to their security guarantees in Europe and Asia. I think the Russians saw what they wanted to see, and while they might have calculated correctly that the US wouldn't commit actual force to defend Ukraine (in that sense the US did leave Ukraine out to dry), they miscalculated their own force as well as how the US could still contribute to Ukraine's defense with some arms and intelligence (which I think is underappreciated element in a lot of discussions, Russia can't achieve strategic or operational surprise in the conflict because the US is basically reading their mail and can "see" all of their units).
The Russian equivalent of sun reading Farage fans
And what would that look like? Doubling down on the same propaganda that led people to support the current invasion and all the horrific deeds against Ukranians that come with it. Which logically leads to a national idea of revenge. I can completely understand people who say that it's better to follow through with sanctions and support for Ukraine right now, instead of watching or even helping the Russians rebuild and try again.
Assuming Russian military will be a shambles unable to reach its previous standard, which was too poor to beat Ukraine, then surely Finland and Sweeden should be less inclined to join NATO? That is, the reason they will give for joining is surely that they are intimidated by Russia? Other words, not joining is the stance which says "we are not intimidated by a poor Russian army".
On the international community. I think there has been a break between Russia and the "west" but not with/between Russia and the international community. India, with a pro-western government, is trading with Russia in rubles (most of the non-Western world either is or will, too: see Pakistan). The Western Asian states (the entire Middle East) have stayed out of the entire topic. The Africans are generally pro-China and China is typically pro-Russia. So I don't see Russia has having lost much in the way of international good will. It will have to deal with the economic fallout which follows complete isolation from two of the world's three largest economic blocs, and that is the primary punishment I see Russia facing. On the other hand, the US and EU continue to buy Russian energy.
That is strange logic, surely you'd rather have the deterrent to not have them invade in the first place rather than 'feel confident' to handle them once they do. Even if Ukraine force them out of their land the extent of damage they will have done will be very tragic.
India is only friendly to Russia because they need the weapons. I wonder how things might change if the Russian military isn't able to provide them with top tier weapons anymore. Looks to me like Russia can't even build more missiles and tanks for themselves in the near-future.
The Middle East is neutral but they have nothing much to contribute to Russia's economy in terms of extensive trade. They certainly don't need to buy more oil and gas from Russia!
China remains Russia's biggest pillar of support, but supporting the Russian economy to the max means significantly hampering their own economic growth. I'm not sure whether it will really be a relationship with 'no limits'. In any case, I guess either a slow-moving China or a completely-fecked Russia is not a bad thing for the West in the long-term.
The Middle East is neutral but they have nothing much to contribute to Russia's economy in terms of extensive trade. They certainly don't need to buy more oil and gas from Russia!
China remains Russia's biggest pillar of support, but supporting the Russian economy to the max means significantly hampering their own economic growth. I'm not sure whether it will really be a relationship with 'no limits'. In any case, I guess either a slow-moving China or a completely-fecked Russia is not a bad thing for the West in the long-term.
Last edited:
I think the logic that Finland or Sweeden is intimidated by a very poor Russian army is unfounded (as is the idea that Russia cares about either Finland/Sweeden) but yeah you could go for a security guarantee just to be safe.
Not really? Because even if Russia haven't achieved their pre-war aims (which I think almost anyone can agree that they haven't), they've still absolutely reduced multiple Ukrainian cities to rubble, have bombarded their population and are close to cutting off their maritime access.
Why would Finland and Sweden want to go through that, even if the end result is that they 'win' against Russia eventually?
This was yesterday. So far only coal is sanctioned. 207 out of EU:s 700+ MEP signing this letter.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Obviously they wouldn't but my point was about the idea that Russia couldn't intimidate Finland/Sweeden "not to" join NATO. It is through intimidation from Russia that either will opt to choose NATO membership, or at least that's how it will be justified. They will join from Russian intimidation, basically, (or sell it as such), which is at odds with the poster's overall point. A minor quibble either way. Except insofar as you sell the idea of Russia as being weak and no threat based on their actions in Ukraine yet also an enormous threat based on their actions in Ukraine (and this simultaneous idea of a weak and strong Russia has been a prominent theme for a long time).
I look forward to your great insights on what Finland should be doing.
The Versailles Treaty was particularly savage and is simply not workable in the modern world (nukes exist, Russia isn't going to surrender with troops within its borders and it won't be possible to bind them to anything remotely similar - e.g. we won't stick NATO troops in their equivalent of the Ruhr valley and confiscate all their coal if they fail to pay).
A better precedent is the Marshall Plan. It is likely that the vast sums of rebuilding will come from the West (US and EU), which will link Ukraine explicitly Westward for generations. I imagine that frozen Russian/Oligarch assets will in part fund it, but will likely be a token amount.
The ultimate legacy of all of this is entrenched Ukrainian hatred of Russia for likely generations and big increase in pro-European sentiment. That'll be cemented with American and European investment during the rebuild.
I think the issue was simply the US messaging. By rushing out to say right from day one that 'we will not fight against Russians in Ukraine' and constantly repeating that message, it simply said to the Russians that they were basically free to proceed as they liked. The Russians were perfectly aware of the sanctions threat and willing to face it, and the Americans admitted later that they knew that. I'm not used to being in a position of wanting the US to be more belligerent, but in this instance even if they had no intention of fighting directly, I do believe that shutting up and letting the threat hang in the air could have had at least a chilling effect on Russian planning.
Here in Finland this is seen as a now or never decision. If we want to be in Nato the time to apply is now when Russia is to busy to do anything about it.
The Russian army can and will be rebuilt and then they will be looking for their next war like they have been doing for the last 20 years. If Russia where to win the war in Ukraine we will be the last non Nato nation bordering Russia in the west so not hard to guess who their next target would be.
What's the general consensus in Finland? I think there was a surge in support recently?
That was my understanding of the history. Particularly relating to the so called hatchet man Beria who was supposed to be the most feared man in all of Russia.
But let's not forget what Gorbachev tried to do. And failed not because of lack of will. But because there were far too many in the Kremlin dear against his policies.
So why would someone else succeed. Unless of course the war in Ukraine goes even worse for the Russians and it ends up like Vietnam.
That's about NATO expansionism which I don't doubt that they do care about. Will be for the Finns and Swedes to decide either way.
Pretty sure whoever made this has mistakenly put bases in Kazakhstan but interesting map, more so for Chinese perspective maybe
Last edited:
If you don't know even basics like this, why are you commenting on Finland at all?