Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.Yes definitely.
Despite the huge assistance Ukraine has been given by many western countries, it is nothing like enough to stop the Russian invasion.
IMHO, it is now time for countries and NATO to ratchet up their equipment support to Ukraine. Especially in light of the most recent attacks in the Donbas region.
I am fearful that the west is taking its eye off Ukraine. And that will become more important as time moves on.
We need significantly better leadership against Putin.
Your joking right? Do I need to list the aid given/promised so far by the US? It far surpasses anything anyone expected.Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
So?Your joking right? Do I need to list the aid given/promised so far by the US? It far surpasses anything anyone expected.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Henry Kissinger's take.....Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Henry Kissinger's take.....
https://www.newsweek.com/does-henry-kissinger-have-point-ukraine-opinion-1710638
When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.Kissinger's suggestion was met with pushback almost immediately. Hours after Kissinger spoke, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his government's position: there will be no peace talks until Moscow withdraws from every inch of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea.
One that won't age well in history, much like Kissinger's reputation and credibility.Henry Kissinger's take.....
https://www.newsweek.com/does-henry-kissinger-have-point-ukraine-opinion-1710638
I just cannot see a positive outcome in the long term to Ukraine being invaded, a genocide being committed and then being forced or pressured to cut a deal with Putin.Henry Kissinger's take.....
https://www.newsweek.com/does-henry-kissinger-have-point-ukraine-opinion-1710638
In the eyes of Zelenskyy/Ukraine, pre invasion is pre 2014.When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
From what I've heard from him from the start, his stance is very much never giving up on Crimea, but he see's that territory more of a diplomatic mission more than a military one. The situation is always changing though, if/when Russia retreats from post 24/2 borders, it may be because they has pretty much been a colapse of their armed forces, at which point a military option may be on the cards. We are a long way off knowing what that reality may look like however.When did Ukrainians start thinking about Russian retreat from Crimea? That's new to me. I thought Zelensky always emphasized pre-invasion borders to be restored and 'accepted' that Crimea was lost for the foreseeable future.
So... Your talking bollocks.
I will happily threadban you for posting bullshit here.Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.
And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
I never said the US wasn't, so I'm confused as to why you're angry?I will happily threadban you for posting bullshit here.
The US is currently giving $135 million worth of support per day to the Ukrainian war effort.
I'm not. Just letting you know.I never said the US wasn't, so I'm confused as to why you're angry?
Perhaps, but what other outcome do you really see happening without Putin butchering thousands more in the meantime?One that won't age well in history, much like Kissinger's reputation and credibility.
I had to stop on the highway while crossing White Sands while there was a live fire test of an MLRS. No clue how far away either the launcher or the target was, but the missiles were clearly audible when they passed overhead. It became like a block party for the thirty minutes before the test was started, it was just another day for the locals.The M270 MLRS has an operational range of 310 miles (500 km) for precision-guided missiles. If those are deployed from anywhere in the Kyiv Oblast, they can basically strike anywhere in Russian-occupied territories.
I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.Perhaps, but what other outcome do you really see happening without Putin butchering thousands more in the meantime?
Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?I believe more Russians troops have died than Ukrainian troops and civilians combined, but that's another matter. Ultimately, if Ukrainians want to defend their country, that's their choice - not that of 99 year old Henry Kissinger.
Beyond that, the trouble with this strategy is that simply agreeing to a ceasefire to appease Putin wouldn't guarantee him not breaking it by inventing some reason 6 months or a year from now. He's a highly accomplished liar obsessed with invading and annexing all of Ukraine, so he isn't likely to abide by any agreement (see Budapest 94 and Minsk 2014). The only way to deal with him is through a language that he understands - coercion and power. Kasperov has been spot on about him from the beginning.
He just tried to take Kyiv, murder the existing democratically elected Ukrainian leader and replace him with a Russian stooge only 3 months ago.Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.Fair enough opinion - but did Putin ever actually state that he wanted all of Ukraine? And the rest of the former Soviet empire for that matter?
You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.
And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
Not sure I agree with that.No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
You could've made the above argument in 2015 and been proven wrong in the present. Let's say he took Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson, Zap, Dnipro (along with already having Dontesk, Luhansk, and Crimea). That's literally a vast majority of Ukraine and its economy.No but you have to be an idiot to see he doesn't want all of Ukraine. He's already gone down the Ukraine isn't a real country route.
I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).You obviously have a problem with President Biden. But the US has committed a huge amount of assistance, both financial and equipment. As has the UK and other NATO countries. Germany excepted.
And of course that has already affected the course of the war thus far.
But at some point, if Ukraine is to be successful, it is going to have to go on the offensive. Unless the so called West supplies significantly more support and military equipment, this invasion is only going to have 1 outcome... unfortunately.
Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.I don't agree. Time is not on Russia's side - the more the war drags on, the more sanctions will bite, the more Russia's ground forces get weaker and weaker, and the more the heavier weapons already supplied to Ukraine (or in the pipeline) will be able to have an effect on the front lines. Of course Ukraine is losing troops and equipment too, but at lesser rate than Russia, and they have much bigger reserves than Russia unless Putin goes for full mobilisation war-footing call-up (which would be hugely unpopular inside Russia).
I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.Hope your assessment is more correct than mine.
I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of UkraineNot sure I agree with that.
Ukraine is by far the biggest of the former Soviet states. And it has significant resources.
So, whether you call what Putin is doing is to recreate the former Soviet Union, or Russia 2, Ukraine, all of Ukraine is his target. Either bit by bit. Or complete invasion.
It would not work out if he did not want all of Ukraine. Gets him nowhere to just take a bit.
Basically agree with this. I don't see the Donbas returning to Ukraine. I also think that isn't the deal-breaker people assume as it was also part of the Minsk negotiations, though as a kind of autonomous federal area. The Ukrainians will obviously decide whether they want to contest that on the battlefield, and that seems to be what they're doing by not retreating despite overwheliming Russian superiority in the East, but long-term I don't see Russia conceding the Donbas and definitely not Crimea.I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.
And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.
Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.That would leave only western Ukraine out of Russian control - until you realize that most of the pipeline infrastructure that transports gas to Europe goes through westerrn Ukraine. So that would mean Putin would not be able to wield any significant influence on European energy by only holding parts of Ukraine. He needs all of it - both for his predatory empire building legacy, as well as to leverage the land to wield power over Europe.
That sounds more like it.I obviously made a spelling error there. I meant you have to be an idiot not to see he wants all of Ukraine
That is what I meant by bit by bit.I'm not sure. Clearly, Russia has revised its strategy and is now focusing only on the Donbas. That's very profitable, cause the Donbas is huge in terms of resources. (There was a CBC article exactly on that topic today: link.) It could very well be that Russia will offer a ceasefire once they've gotten control of the Donbas. That would stop their losses (apart from the sanctions; but as @DT12 has pointed out, they're not as effective as people think), allow them to reinforce its military, and properly establish its hold of the Donbas. Of course, it would allow Ukraine to restrengthen as well, but losing the Donbas would be a big economic blow to the country, and Ukraine won't be able to strengthen to the point where they can threaten Russia's hold over the Donbas once Russia has properly captured it and has set up its defenses.
And then in a few years, rinse-repeat: Russia claims another part of Ukraine as theirs, attack that, and the story recommences. Or they don't (e.g. because Putin isn't in power anymore and the next leader doesn't share his Great Russia dream), but even so Ukraine is unlikely to get Donbas back.
Negative, maybe, but it doesn't seem realistic to me either to think that, long-term, the only way is up for Ukraine.
This is a truly bizarre take for a country who just signed a £40bn lend lease bill.Well its 2 years away from the next US election before that West gets a leader who knows his own name, so Putin's got that amount of time to get what he wants.
No amount of NATO help will sadly make a difference before food and fuel shortages begin to really bite by which time NATO will over step the line, if it already hasn't.
And yes, the world's already getting bored of it, the same way Syria and Afghanistan and even Covid play second fiddle to Depp, Heard, Monkeypox and birthday cakes.
No one said destroying their own pipeline infrastructure is a good idea, especially given they could resume using it once there's a change in government in Russia. The fact that Nord Stream has been curtailed means Putin will require existing infrastructure within Ukraine to sell to Europe. Although Europe would probably diversify away from Putin if he were to magically take control of all of Ukraine.On this point. The Ukrainians have had it in their power to destroy those pipelines since February. The reason they don't do it is because they're using the gas, too. On top of that, their European backers want/need the gas to keep flowing. But long-term, Europe is moving away from Russian energy so these pipelines would become semi-obsolete either way in a future where Russia remains under sanction.