Ukraine
-
@majorrage I think the "effective" question @mariner4life was asking was more around the endgame, rather than just "winning" this war.
Like what is he going to be left with after this? He can't effect regime change then maintain control over all of Ukraine, it's too big and there will be constant attacks. Does he retreat and control some select cities and ports? Maybe, but then what is he up to right now?
And what about the effect on Russia itself? The economy is in free-fall, so many people affected by his actions. Not just the billionaires, but the common folk and the large corporations and the small businesses.
It's really hard to see how there is a positive outcome in all of this for Putin.
Which brings us full circle to him appearing increasingly more deranged and having control over a vast array of nuclear weapons.
Terrifying
We need a Russian Lee Harvey Oswald, and soon.
-
@majorrage I think the "effective" question @mariner4life was asking was more around the endgame, rather than just "winning" this war.
Yes, I totally get that, but wasn't the point I was making.
Like what is he going to be left with after this? He can't effect regime change then maintain control over all of Ukraine, it's too big and there will be constant attacks. Does he retreat and control some select cities and ports? Maybe, but then what is he up to right now?
I have no idea what his plan is. Plenty of pundits think he's trying to use force to get the USSR back as one. They might be right. He clearly doesn't care about a world united against him, mainly because he thinks that the status quo anyway, I suspect.
And what about the effect on Russia itself? The economy is in free-fall, so many people affected by his actions. Not just the billionaires, but the common folk and the large corporations and the small businesses.
Yep, the people that get fucked the most in war, are the general folks. Putin doesn't see it like that. He see's his oil reserves, his accrued cash reserves and thinks he can hold the world to ransom. He think the price the rest of Europe / planet will pay for it is greater than the effect of the sanctions on his people. The obvious point is that nobody needed to get fucked on.
It's really hard to see how there is a positive outcome in all of this for Putin.
Which brings us full circle to him appearing increasingly more deranged and having control over a vast array of nuclear weapons.
Terrifying
We need a Russian Lee Harvey Oswald, and soon.
I did choose my words carefully, I didn't say he was amazing, and I didn't say for the longer term. I said effective & at the moment.
Reality is he thinks he's got China in his pocket, India in a slighty lesser, but still positive position & holds Europe to ransom with energy. This isn't a drunken crazy idea came from nowhere. This is a longer term plan where he's been strategic in his movements & relationships. I have no issues with labelling this effective leadership. It's not an endorsement.
-
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
-
-
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
I think what you are saying is you define effective as good. That's where we differ. I would also define Hitler as a very effective leader.
No wrong or right here, but we are on the same page for the most part Disappointingly, feel like a good stoush.
-
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
They will starve because their currency is fucked. Meanwhile Putin's megarich pals all have their ill-gotten gains stashed offshore
-
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
They will starve because their currency is fucked. Meanwhile Putin's megarich pals all have their ill-gotten gains stashed offshore
Yep. And the west is fully aware of this, which is why sanctions are coming thick and fast at them.
-
@majorrage said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
They will starve because their currency is fucked. Meanwhile Putin's megarich pals all have their ill-gotten gains stashed offshore
Indeed.
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
I guess where we differ is
I would define an effective leader is one who does good things for the people he leads
None of this is good for them. They couldn't give a fuck about running the Ukraine. They (probably) weren't afraid they were about to cop missiles from the west.
Instead they get fucked by sanctions
Their economy is tanked.
Their ability to do business in the world is severely hampered at best
They can't even log in to porn hubAnd for what??
They will starve because their currency is fucked. Meanwhile Putin's megarich pals all have their ill-gotten gains stashed offshore
Yep. And the west is fully aware of this, which is why sanctions are coming thick and fast at them.
I see another oligarch's yacht just got seized, this time in France. This seems like the West's weapon of choice. They could ramp up pressure by issuing a warrant for the arrest of Putin and his cronies as war criminals, seize or freeze all of their assets outside Russia. I don't know if that would be significant pressure for the oligarchy to consider rolling him. In the end will punishing the everyday Russian be enough alone to roll him? Will 2022's VIL stand up?
-
@majorrage said in Ukraine:
This isn't a drunken crazy idea came from nowhere. This is a longer term plan where he's been strategic in his movements & relationships.
I'd argue he may have a plan, but has seriously miscalculated. His strategy - successful to date - has been to cause division in NATO & Europe from energy dependence, cause problems in places like Syria & Mail and salami-slice territory, based on his view that the West is divided and isn't really up to opposing him. He planned for a quick victory and restoring a puppet Ukrainian regime.
The reality is he has united the West, tanked his economy and probably caused a war which will drag on and possibly cause big domestic problems. Added to that, he has woken up Germany militarily and energy-wise and radically changed public opinion on NATO membership in Finland and Norway. Yeah, he'll take over Ukraine, but as a wise old bugger once said winning a war is easy, its winning the victory which is the tricky bit.
The concerning part is what he does in the next year or two and how China reacts as it's becoming clear to me the days of the West tolerating Putin are long gone.
-
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Vlad is obviously banking on outlasting the West, and the famed ability of his people to endure huge hardship without much complaint
-
If (like me), you want to review some of the history of Russian concern about Nato expansion, the following story might be a useful read (I know there is significant debate about whether this was even a quid pro quo, but it seems that Baker promised it). This story is from 2016.
In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.
-
It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement.
The only two countries which joined NATO before Putin were Poland and Hungary who joined just before Putin came into power. The others joined years into Putin's reign and after he started kicking off in Chechnya. I may be wrong, but isn't it a central plank of NATO policy that they cannot guarantee that a country will be barred from membership?
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement.
The only two countries which joined NATO before Putin were Poland and Hungary who joined just before Putin came into power. The others joined years into Putin's reign and after he started kicking off in Chechnya. I may be wrong, but isn't it a central plank of NATO policy that they cannot guarantee that a country will be barred from membership?
Those quotes come from the article.
I'm not taking the Russian side here at all, I posted it because it might be useful in understanding Putin's mindset.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement.
The only two countries which joined NATO before Putin were Poland and Hungary who joined just before Putin came into power. The others joined years into Putin's reign and after he started kicking off in Chechnya. I may be wrong, but isn't it a central plank of NATO policy that they cannot guarantee that a country will be barred from membership?
Those quotes come from the article.
I'm not taking the Russian side here at all, I posted it because it might be useful in understanding Putin's mindset.
Not disagreeing with you and tks for posting - just pointing out the article glosses over a few key dates which puts it in context
Putin has said the loss of the USSR was a catastrophe and he's surrounded by ex-KGB agents, so perhaps it's less NATO expansion than loss of empire? Considering it's mineral wealth and education system, Russia should have been a key player economically by now and challenging Germany and Japan. The fact that it's become a basket-case under Putin and he's allowed rampant corruption makes me wonder if he sees expansion as the only way to stay in office. Nothing like a good war to rouse the masses in your favour. Problems start when you run out of safe wars to start..
Dangerous times.
-
@victor-meldrew is Russia a basket case on the home front?
I had thought they held their own economically. Their at home purchasing power per capita was quite high up in the world lists.
-
@majorrage said in Ukraine:
He’s put me in a school of thought which worries me about myself, my children and my friends / family. He’s a fucking fluffybunny. I hope he doesn’t achieve shit, I really do.
TR Jnr asked me the other day if he should be worried about this, I said I have no idea, I hope not!
-
@muddyriver said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew is Russia a basket case on the home front?
I had thought they held their own economically. Their at home purchasing power per capita was quite high up in the world lists.
Dunno. For a country of 150 million, all the minerals they can eat and a strong scientific & educational base, they really should be forging ahead. Instead, they have lagged behind the likes of Poland & the Czech republic since the end of the Cold War.
-
@gt12 This has always been the case. The Russian psyche has a deeply ingrained distrust of the west having been invaded from there too often and with too much suffering as a result.
During the cold war the US was prepared to push the nuclear button because of the Cuban missile crisis meanwhile the USSR was ringed by American missiles and nukes.
Putin is definitely mining this distrust for his propaganda campaign. He's a tyrannical megalomaniac sociopath. It was only a matter of time before indiscriminate targeting of civilian targets within Ukraine was stepped up. He doesn't give a shit about his opponents or the general Russian population as long as he believes his aims are being achieved.
Despite all that I don't give much credence to talk of domestic opposition. Russians like a strong leader and he will have no compunction in aggressively stamping out any real dissent.
I was living in Holland when USSR invaded Afghanistan and there was a very real sense of apprehension with the local air bases flying sorties day and night and tank traps being set up on the motorways. I can only imagine what its like in Europe now let alone in the Ukraine and Baltic states. At least Brezhnev would listen to reason.