Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Quite the manifesto 10:05 - Apr 6 with 3389 viewsGuthrum

Published in Russian state-owned media, an article by a pro-Moscow Ukrainian 'political technologist' in exile on his vision for the future of the country. Which, if it reflects official thoughts and intentions, is pretty hair-raising. Here translated by Ukrainian activists:

https://medium.com/@kravchenko_mm/what-should-russia-do-with-ukraine-translation

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

2
Quite the manifesto on 12:39 - Apr 6 with 2190 viewslongtimefan

You could simply transpose the Russian and Ukrainian roles in that document and it would be infinitely more accurate.
0
Quite the manifesto on 12:41 - Apr 6 with 2183 viewsBent_double

Assuming that is a valid document (and an accurate translation), some of the statements in it are mind-blowing - if these are the things Russia honestly believes, then there is no hope for a peaceful solution.


"... the establishment of a tribunal for crimes against humanity in the former Ukraine. In this regard, Russia should act as the guardian of the Nuremberg Trials."

"Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century. It implemented the main Western project that constituted an alternative to capitalism, which defeated the nation-states – the Socialist red project. It crushed German Nazism, a monstrous offspring of the crisis of Western civilization. The last act of Russian altruism was its outstretched hand of friendship, for which it received a monstrous blow in the 1990s."


"Everything that Russia has done for the West, it has done at its own expense, by making the greatest sacrifices. The West ultimately rejected all these sacrifices, devalued Russia’s contribution to resolving the Western crisis, and decided to take revenge on Russia for the help that it had selflessly provided. From now on, Russia will follow its own way, not worrying about the fate of the West, relying on another part of its heritage – the leadership in the global process of decolonization."

Poll: So what do we think will happen with MM and the Aston Villa job?

0
Quite the manifesto on 12:48 - Apr 6 with 2161 viewsDanTheMan

Quite the manifesto on 12:41 - Apr 6 by Bent_double

Assuming that is a valid document (and an accurate translation), some of the statements in it are mind-blowing - if these are the things Russia honestly believes, then there is no hope for a peaceful solution.


"... the establishment of a tribunal for crimes against humanity in the former Ukraine. In this regard, Russia should act as the guardian of the Nuremberg Trials."

"Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century. It implemented the main Western project that constituted an alternative to capitalism, which defeated the nation-states – the Socialist red project. It crushed German Nazism, a monstrous offspring of the crisis of Western civilization. The last act of Russian altruism was its outstretched hand of friendship, for which it received a monstrous blow in the 1990s."


"Everything that Russia has done for the West, it has done at its own expense, by making the greatest sacrifices. The West ultimately rejected all these sacrifices, devalued Russia’s contribution to resolving the Western crisis, and decided to take revenge on Russia for the help that it had selflessly provided. From now on, Russia will follow its own way, not worrying about the fate of the West, relying on another part of its heritage – the leadership in the global process of decolonization."


"Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century"

It's just an amazing re-writing of history that even a GCSE student could quite easily refute.

Poll: FM Parallel Game Week 1 (Fulham) - Available Team

0
Quite the manifesto on 13:09 - Apr 6 with 2108 viewspointofblue

Quite the manifesto on 12:41 - Apr 6 by Bent_double

Assuming that is a valid document (and an accurate translation), some of the statements in it are mind-blowing - if these are the things Russia honestly believes, then there is no hope for a peaceful solution.


"... the establishment of a tribunal for crimes against humanity in the former Ukraine. In this regard, Russia should act as the guardian of the Nuremberg Trials."

"Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century. It implemented the main Western project that constituted an alternative to capitalism, which defeated the nation-states – the Socialist red project. It crushed German Nazism, a monstrous offspring of the crisis of Western civilization. The last act of Russian altruism was its outstretched hand of friendship, for which it received a monstrous blow in the 1990s."


"Everything that Russia has done for the West, it has done at its own expense, by making the greatest sacrifices. The West ultimately rejected all these sacrifices, devalued Russia’s contribution to resolving the Western crisis, and decided to take revenge on Russia for the help that it had selflessly provided. From now on, Russia will follow its own way, not worrying about the fate of the West, relying on another part of its heritage – the leadership in the global process of decolonization."


They forget that the Soviet Union were actually allies of the Nazis until Hitler turned Germany’s fire on them.

Poll: Who would you play at right centre back on Saturday?

1
Quite the manifesto on 13:56 - Apr 6 with 2061 viewsBent_double

Quite the manifesto on 13:09 - Apr 6 by pointofblue

They forget that the Soviet Union were actually allies of the Nazis until Hitler turned Germany’s fire on them.


Now, now, stop spreading nasty fake news like that...it simply can't be true unless the Russians say so!

Poll: So what do we think will happen with MM and the Aston Villa job?

0
Quite the manifesto on 13:58 - Apr 6 with 2053 viewsChurchman

An interesting view that tells you all you need to know about a totalitarian regime’s intentions. You could substitute Nazi Germany Goebbels and Hitler as the authors of this, change the titles and you have their 1940s policy.

The view of history is one eyed. Russia was defeated in WW1. As it fell into Revolution, it also fell into poverty and the iron grip of Stalin in the 20s and 30s. A man who murdered millions of his own people. He murdered 10s of 1000s of his own military too to the point that when Germany invaded 22/6/41, it had little by way if officer corps or kit of any quality, bar the Il2 and T34 just coming into service.

There is no doubting the sacrifice by Russia’s military or population in WW2 (24m), but to paraphrase James Holland they and Germany chose to fight with manpower, the U.K. and US chose mechanisation. Russian authors completely deny anyone else took part in WW2 or their sacrifice come to that.

Russia also invaded half of Poland in 1939 having embraced Hitler even before the Russo-German non aggression pact and conducted a shambolic land grab on Finland in 1940 - with 400k casualties.

Russia also fails to mention that the U.K. Commonwealth and US had to fight a world war. Russia didn’t. They also fail to mention the quantities of material sent to Russia that made a difference when they most needed it (Moscow, Stalingrad).

There’s many things they fail to mention, not least that all western countries know what nazism is and it isn’t what we see in Ukraine.

It is a bizarre article which justifies the turning of an area into at best a slave state and I suspect if they swallow it there will be mass murder, deportations and people movement to ensure any form resistance never emerges again. It’s their way.

The Russians won’t stop. When Ukraine is taken, even if it’s done in stages, they’ll move on to the next target. Even if Poland falls back into the Soviet empire, they won’t stop there either, unless they are forced to. It is not in their nature to.

It’s up to western countries to pull their heads out of their rear ends and face up to it. I’m not sure they’re capable of that. As it goes, I see in the news in the last month Germany alone has spent more on Russian energy than it has in aid to Ukraine. It’s little wonder Putin isn’t worried about the sabre rattling and a few ineffectual sanctions.
[Post edited 6 Apr 2022 14:00]
2
Quite the manifesto on 14:34 - Apr 6 with 2014 viewsjeera

Quite the manifesto on 12:48 - Apr 6 by DanTheMan

"Russia did everything possible to save the West in the 20th century"

It's just an amazing re-writing of history that even a GCSE student could quite easily refute.


I'm still struggling with the bit about being leaders in decolonization.

Surely that's supposed to say the opposite.

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
Quite the manifesto on 15:55 - Apr 6 with 1955 viewsRyorry

Quite the manifesto on 13:58 - Apr 6 by Churchman

An interesting view that tells you all you need to know about a totalitarian regime’s intentions. You could substitute Nazi Germany Goebbels and Hitler as the authors of this, change the titles and you have their 1940s policy.

The view of history is one eyed. Russia was defeated in WW1. As it fell into Revolution, it also fell into poverty and the iron grip of Stalin in the 20s and 30s. A man who murdered millions of his own people. He murdered 10s of 1000s of his own military too to the point that when Germany invaded 22/6/41, it had little by way if officer corps or kit of any quality, bar the Il2 and T34 just coming into service.

There is no doubting the sacrifice by Russia’s military or population in WW2 (24m), but to paraphrase James Holland they and Germany chose to fight with manpower, the U.K. and US chose mechanisation. Russian authors completely deny anyone else took part in WW2 or their sacrifice come to that.

Russia also invaded half of Poland in 1939 having embraced Hitler even before the Russo-German non aggression pact and conducted a shambolic land grab on Finland in 1940 - with 400k casualties.

Russia also fails to mention that the U.K. Commonwealth and US had to fight a world war. Russia didn’t. They also fail to mention the quantities of material sent to Russia that made a difference when they most needed it (Moscow, Stalingrad).

There’s many things they fail to mention, not least that all western countries know what nazism is and it isn’t what we see in Ukraine.

It is a bizarre article which justifies the turning of an area into at best a slave state and I suspect if they swallow it there will be mass murder, deportations and people movement to ensure any form resistance never emerges again. It’s their way.

The Russians won’t stop. When Ukraine is taken, even if it’s done in stages, they’ll move on to the next target. Even if Poland falls back into the Soviet empire, they won’t stop there either, unless they are forced to. It is not in their nature to.

It’s up to western countries to pull their heads out of their rear ends and face up to it. I’m not sure they’re capable of that. As it goes, I see in the news in the last month Germany alone has spent more on Russian energy than it has in aid to Ukraine. It’s little wonder Putin isn’t worried about the sabre rattling and a few ineffectual sanctions.
[Post edited 6 Apr 2022 14:00]


Such delusion & propaganda, esp considering that large swathes of Russia's population can't/don't get external sources of news, is really worrying, considering their chemical & nuclear arsenals.

Can only see one practical solution, which I'll refrain from posting publicly.

Poll: Why can't/don't we protest like the French do? 🤔

0
Login to get fewer ads

Quite the manifesto on 19:00 - Apr 6 with 1860 viewsKropotkin123

I've been thinking on the points you were raising the other day in relation to my post on the massacre. I was wondering, and this isn't intended to be provocative, at what point would you believe NATO getting involved militarily is preferred. For ease of answering, let's set the perimeter that the invasion is limited to Ukraine in all scenarios.

I'm generally thinking along two lines. The escalation of force used. Eg nuclear weapons used on Ukraine at one extreme. And the extent of current force used. Eg massacres in two towns becomes 5, 20, 100, etc.

I assume we can both agree that at the moment we have the shelling of towns (indiscriminate use of weapons), targeting of civilians in humanitarian corridors, execution of civilians, and massacres. But I feel it is worth saying, so we are rationalising in this context.

Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
Poll: Are you happy we signed
Blog: Round Four: Eagle

0
Quite the manifesto on 19:17 - Apr 6 with 1832 viewsSwansea_Blue

Quite the manifesto on 12:39 - Apr 6 by longtimefan

You could simply transpose the Russian and Ukrainian roles in that document and it would be infinitely more accurate.


Projection can be pretty powerful. We’ve seen how much here at home over the last 6 yrs or so.

Poll: Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

1
Quite the manifesto on 20:52 - Apr 6 with 1756 viewsRyorry

Quite the manifesto on 19:17 - Apr 6 by Swansea_Blue

Projection can be pretty powerful. We’ve seen how much here at home over the last 6 yrs or so.


Ie on TWTD?

Poll: Why can't/don't we protest like the French do? 🤔

0
Quite the manifesto on 21:28 - Apr 6 with 1741 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 19:00 - Apr 6 by Kropotkin123

I've been thinking on the points you were raising the other day in relation to my post on the massacre. I was wondering, and this isn't intended to be provocative, at what point would you believe NATO getting involved militarily is preferred. For ease of answering, let's set the perimeter that the invasion is limited to Ukraine in all scenarios.

I'm generally thinking along two lines. The escalation of force used. Eg nuclear weapons used on Ukraine at one extreme. And the extent of current force used. Eg massacres in two towns becomes 5, 20, 100, etc.

I assume we can both agree that at the moment we have the shelling of towns (indiscriminate use of weapons), targeting of civilians in humanitarian corridors, execution of civilians, and massacres. But I feel it is worth saying, so we are rationalising in this context.


I've been discussing this at great length with a friend who is obsessed with not getting involved at any cost (he fears escalation, nuclear war and that more action pushes further away a negotiated end to the fighting). I don't take quite such an extreme position.

For active NATO military involvement - as opposed to training, arming and supplying the Ukrainians, which is already happening, plus steadily increasing sanctions - my threshold is currently the use of nuclear or biological weapons by Russia. At that point the wider effects (radioactive fallout, disease contagion) become a threat to the whole region, which includes a number of alliance members.

The things you list in the third paragraph are horrific - but they pretty much happen in all wars. Particularly so where the lines between who is in the military and who is not become blurred (e.g. the use of non- or semi-uniformed militias) or there is substantial hostility, even resistance, from civilians in occupied areas. I'm not yet sure (despite that article) how much is deliberate policy and how much lack of discipline/poor morale among Russian troops.

Please note this is explanation, not justification. There is no justification for such actions.

I don't believe that NATO involvement would particularly help the Ukrainians (who are already doing a very good job of defeating Russia). The theatre would automatically be widened, with us having to defend the Baltic States and Poland, possibly also Norway, countries with coasts on the Black Sea (from naval attack), and trans-Atlantic shipping lanes. It would take weeks to build up forces (and resources) for offensive action. All that would seriously detract from the amount of support we could give to Kyiv. We can't give away weapons we might need ourselves.

Even a no-fly zone (in reality an air umbrella for Ukraine is what's being asked for) is a major operation, not something which can be staged in five minutes.

Also, where does it all stop? How do we make Putin desist without toppling him from power? Can we even manage that and would it end with him using nuclear weapons in extremis?

That's why I think that, barring the scenarios outlined in my second paragraph, the best option is to give all possible aid to Ukraine and to attack their economy (and, by extension, their ability to fund the war).

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

5
Quite the manifesto on 21:35 - Apr 6 with 1705 viewsNthsuffolkblue

Quite the manifesto on 14:34 - Apr 6 by jeera

I'm still struggling with the bit about being leaders in decolonization.

Surely that's supposed to say the opposite.


Each time I read that word, I think of it as a scientific term referring to a part of the digestive system.

Poll: Is Jeremy Clarkson misogynistic, racist or plain nasty?
Blog: [Blog] Ghostbusters

0
Quite the manifesto on 22:50 - Apr 6 with 1652 viewsChurchman

Quite the manifesto on 21:28 - Apr 6 by Guthrum

I've been discussing this at great length with a friend who is obsessed with not getting involved at any cost (he fears escalation, nuclear war and that more action pushes further away a negotiated end to the fighting). I don't take quite such an extreme position.

For active NATO military involvement - as opposed to training, arming and supplying the Ukrainians, which is already happening, plus steadily increasing sanctions - my threshold is currently the use of nuclear or biological weapons by Russia. At that point the wider effects (radioactive fallout, disease contagion) become a threat to the whole region, which includes a number of alliance members.

The things you list in the third paragraph are horrific - but they pretty much happen in all wars. Particularly so where the lines between who is in the military and who is not become blurred (e.g. the use of non- or semi-uniformed militias) or there is substantial hostility, even resistance, from civilians in occupied areas. I'm not yet sure (despite that article) how much is deliberate policy and how much lack of discipline/poor morale among Russian troops.

Please note this is explanation, not justification. There is no justification for such actions.

I don't believe that NATO involvement would particularly help the Ukrainians (who are already doing a very good job of defeating Russia). The theatre would automatically be widened, with us having to defend the Baltic States and Poland, possibly also Norway, countries with coasts on the Black Sea (from naval attack), and trans-Atlantic shipping lanes. It would take weeks to build up forces (and resources) for offensive action. All that would seriously detract from the amount of support we could give to Kyiv. We can't give away weapons we might need ourselves.

Even a no-fly zone (in reality an air umbrella for Ukraine is what's being asked for) is a major operation, not something which can be staged in five minutes.

Also, where does it all stop? How do we make Putin desist without toppling him from power? Can we even manage that and would it end with him using nuclear weapons in extremis?

That's why I think that, barring the scenarios outlined in my second paragraph, the best option is to give all possible aid to Ukraine and to attack their economy (and, by extension, their ability to fund the war).


How about no fly zones over humanitarian corridors, as invited by the Sovereign state of Ukraine to protect civilians? Hypothetically what could the Russians do? They would be shot out of the skies in 24 hours if they challenged and humiliated if they didn’t. It would leave Putin in an impossible position.

Just a thought that’ll not happen. I guess this sitting by and watching a crime against humanity taking place on tv with little by way of support bar a few handhelds, shiny badges and pained looks doesn’t sit well with me.

As for massacres, human shields etc, the russkis have form re not worrying about what they do, but I do think it’s mostly ill discipline. They seem very mixed in quality and discipline from the snippets coming out. As with you, I’m not justifying what they’ve done. They and their officers and above all the way to Putin must be held to account.
0
Quite the manifesto on 23:17 - Apr 6 with 1625 viewsjeera

Quite the manifesto on 21:28 - Apr 6 by Guthrum

I've been discussing this at great length with a friend who is obsessed with not getting involved at any cost (he fears escalation, nuclear war and that more action pushes further away a negotiated end to the fighting). I don't take quite such an extreme position.

For active NATO military involvement - as opposed to training, arming and supplying the Ukrainians, which is already happening, plus steadily increasing sanctions - my threshold is currently the use of nuclear or biological weapons by Russia. At that point the wider effects (radioactive fallout, disease contagion) become a threat to the whole region, which includes a number of alliance members.

The things you list in the third paragraph are horrific - but they pretty much happen in all wars. Particularly so where the lines between who is in the military and who is not become blurred (e.g. the use of non- or semi-uniformed militias) or there is substantial hostility, even resistance, from civilians in occupied areas. I'm not yet sure (despite that article) how much is deliberate policy and how much lack of discipline/poor morale among Russian troops.

Please note this is explanation, not justification. There is no justification for such actions.

I don't believe that NATO involvement would particularly help the Ukrainians (who are already doing a very good job of defeating Russia). The theatre would automatically be widened, with us having to defend the Baltic States and Poland, possibly also Norway, countries with coasts on the Black Sea (from naval attack), and trans-Atlantic shipping lanes. It would take weeks to build up forces (and resources) for offensive action. All that would seriously detract from the amount of support we could give to Kyiv. We can't give away weapons we might need ourselves.

Even a no-fly zone (in reality an air umbrella for Ukraine is what's being asked for) is a major operation, not something which can be staged in five minutes.

Also, where does it all stop? How do we make Putin desist without toppling him from power? Can we even manage that and would it end with him using nuclear weapons in extremis?

That's why I think that, barring the scenarios outlined in my second paragraph, the best option is to give all possible aid to Ukraine and to attack their economy (and, by extension, their ability to fund the war).


"The things you list in the third paragraph are horrific - but they pretty much happen in all wars. Particularly so where the lines between who is in the military and who is not become blurred (e.g. the use of non- or semi-uniformed militias) or there is substantial hostility, even resistance, from civilians in occupied areas. I'm not yet sure (despite that article) how much is deliberate policy and how much lack of discipline/poor morale among Russian troops. "

Housing has been deliberately targeted; high rise blocks blown apart, people's homes, bodies lying outside in the square, children's playground riddled with shrapnel.

Elsewhere reports of women and children raped, gang-raped. Kids gang-raped.

I don't think it's all down to confusion on the ground there about who's who to be honest.

Poll: Xmas dinner: Yorkshires or not?

0
Quite the manifesto on 00:14 - Apr 7 with 1598 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 23:17 - Apr 6 by jeera

"The things you list in the third paragraph are horrific - but they pretty much happen in all wars. Particularly so where the lines between who is in the military and who is not become blurred (e.g. the use of non- or semi-uniformed militias) or there is substantial hostility, even resistance, from civilians in occupied areas. I'm not yet sure (despite that article) how much is deliberate policy and how much lack of discipline/poor morale among Russian troops. "

Housing has been deliberately targeted; high rise blocks blown apart, people's homes, bodies lying outside in the square, children's playground riddled with shrapnel.

Elsewhere reports of women and children raped, gang-raped. Kids gang-raped.

I don't think it's all down to confusion on the ground there about who's who to be honest.


I'm not talking about confusion over targets. The soldiers get into a state of mind (paranoia, even) where they believe all civilians are fighting against them as much as the opposing troops. Discipline and professionalism collapse, they then lash out and start deliberately killing, abusing and raping non-combatants.

An illustration: In 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War, un-uniformed guerilla fighters named Francs-Tireurs took pot-shots at the invading German troops. 44 years later, in the confused and fluid opening weeks of the First World War, German forces moving through Belgium and northern France came under attack from unexpected directions (by regular troops). Once again, the cry of "Francs-Tireurs" went up and atrocities happened. Including, famously, the Burning of Louvain.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
Quite the manifesto on 00:24 - Apr 7 with 1589 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 22:50 - Apr 6 by Churchman

How about no fly zones over humanitarian corridors, as invited by the Sovereign state of Ukraine to protect civilians? Hypothetically what could the Russians do? They would be shot out of the skies in 24 hours if they challenged and humiliated if they didn’t. It would leave Putin in an impossible position.

Just a thought that’ll not happen. I guess this sitting by and watching a crime against humanity taking place on tv with little by way of support bar a few handhelds, shiny badges and pained looks doesn’t sit well with me.

As for massacres, human shields etc, the russkis have form re not worrying about what they do, but I do think it’s mostly ill discipline. They seem very mixed in quality and discipline from the snippets coming out. As with you, I’m not justifying what they’ve done. They and their officers and above all the way to Putin must be held to account.


To impose a no-fly zone, we would have to fire upon Russian forces. That then opens the prospect of them attacking back - not limited to Ukraine.

We bomb their antiaircraft batteries and shoot down 'planes, they fire volleys of missiles at Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Warsaw. Or start sinking ships in the Atlantic.

This idea that we can simply mount an instant intervention in the Ukraine situation with no wider consequences is unrealistic. Pushed into a corner, why would Putin hold back? Restraint doesn't win him anything.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
Quite the manifesto on 08:15 - Apr 7 with 1477 viewsChurchman

Quite the manifesto on 00:24 - Apr 7 by Guthrum

To impose a no-fly zone, we would have to fire upon Russian forces. That then opens the prospect of them attacking back - not limited to Ukraine.

We bomb their antiaircraft batteries and shoot down 'planes, they fire volleys of missiles at Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Warsaw. Or start sinking ships in the Atlantic.

This idea that we can simply mount an instant intervention in the Ukraine situation with no wider consequences is unrealistic. Pushed into a corner, why would Putin hold back? Restraint doesn't win him anything.


I don’t disagree with you and what you say is backed by the Pentagon bloke earlier.

The problem I have with this for me is that if you take the Pentagon’s don’t want to escalate, want them to negotiate, anything but confrontation, the only solution is for Ukraine to cave in and quickly. Give Putin what he wants. Where does that leave us? Waiting for the next one.

Putin isn’t going to stop. It’s the one certainty. He doesn’t do restraint and or holding back. At some point he has to be made to understand there are consequences. There are no consequences for him at the moment. 1000s of lives have been lost. Since when did that animal care about that? Sanctions? Window dressing that do nothing bar making a few shiny politicians and a crumpled one with a toddler haircut feel better about their ineptness.

But for nuclear weapons, there would have been intervention by NATO (the US). Putin now knows the west will never use them, we believe Russia will. His pre war threat was taken seriously and worked. The west’s nuclear deterrent is basically in the bin.

One thing we do know is that non nuclear military Russia is not as strong as people, including me, thought. He will be a lot stronger in a few years time when we have all this again. I guess that’s why I’m quite bullish and to be self critical here, I accept it’s easy for me to be that way when my rear end is no longer on the line or the one who makes the decisions.
0
Quite the manifesto on 10:22 - Apr 7 with 1437 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 08:15 - Apr 7 by Churchman

I don’t disagree with you and what you say is backed by the Pentagon bloke earlier.

The problem I have with this for me is that if you take the Pentagon’s don’t want to escalate, want them to negotiate, anything but confrontation, the only solution is for Ukraine to cave in and quickly. Give Putin what he wants. Where does that leave us? Waiting for the next one.

Putin isn’t going to stop. It’s the one certainty. He doesn’t do restraint and or holding back. At some point he has to be made to understand there are consequences. There are no consequences for him at the moment. 1000s of lives have been lost. Since when did that animal care about that? Sanctions? Window dressing that do nothing bar making a few shiny politicians and a crumpled one with a toddler haircut feel better about their ineptness.

But for nuclear weapons, there would have been intervention by NATO (the US). Putin now knows the west will never use them, we believe Russia will. His pre war threat was taken seriously and worked. The west’s nuclear deterrent is basically in the bin.

One thing we do know is that non nuclear military Russia is not as strong as people, including me, thought. He will be a lot stronger in a few years time when we have all this again. I guess that’s why I’m quite bullish and to be self critical here, I accept it’s easy for me to be that way when my rear end is no longer on the line or the one who makes the decisions.


You say sanctions are window dressing, but it was reported yesterday that Russian oil revenues are down by $3.6bn for March, about 38% - https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oil-gas-energy-sales-lower-march-ukraine- . Also that the Chinese, while continuing to buy already ordered fuel, are not setting up new contracts - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-china-state-refiners-shun-new-

There is a third outcome, that Ukraine could win the war. Either by defeating all attempts to capture territory (excluding Crimea or pre-existing Donbas separatist regions), or by causing a collapse in morale and fighting effectiveness in the Russian army. Astonishing as that might have sounded in mid February, it is something really on the cards. Then they can negotiate from strength - if Putin survives a loss of such magnitude.

NATO were never going to use the nuclear threat unless a member state was under attack. Which Ukraine was not. The deterrant isn't in the bin, as the West has done pretty much everything except sending troops over the border in terms of supporting Kyiv, yet the Russians have not done anything substantive about that. Neither have they used chemical, bio or nuclear weapons, even when militarily stymied.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
[Redacted] on 10:51 - Apr 7 with 1406 viewsvictorywilhappen

[Redacted]
2
Quite the manifesto on 11:18 - Apr 7 with 1354 viewsBent_double

Quite the manifesto on 10:22 - Apr 7 by Guthrum

You say sanctions are window dressing, but it was reported yesterday that Russian oil revenues are down by $3.6bn for March, about 38% - https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oil-gas-energy-sales-lower-march-ukraine- . Also that the Chinese, while continuing to buy already ordered fuel, are not setting up new contracts - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-china-state-refiners-shun-new-

There is a third outcome, that Ukraine could win the war. Either by defeating all attempts to capture territory (excluding Crimea or pre-existing Donbas separatist regions), or by causing a collapse in morale and fighting effectiveness in the Russian army. Astonishing as that might have sounded in mid February, it is something really on the cards. Then they can negotiate from strength - if Putin survives a loss of such magnitude.

NATO were never going to use the nuclear threat unless a member state was under attack. Which Ukraine was not. The deterrant isn't in the bin, as the West has done pretty much everything except sending troops over the border in terms of supporting Kyiv, yet the Russians have not done anything substantive about that. Neither have they used chemical, bio or nuclear weapons, even when militarily stymied.


This is probably stretching it a bit much, but what if Ukraine were to win, ie they manage to take back all disputed territory in the east? Would they then try to take Crimea back while Russia was at it's weakest?

I did hear a report on one of the news channels a few weeks ago that suggested the people of Crimea still consider themselves Ukrainian, so why not?

Poll: So what do we think will happen with MM and the Aston Villa job?

0
Quite the manifesto on 11:28 - Apr 7 with 1324 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 11:18 - Apr 7 by Bent_double

This is probably stretching it a bit much, but what if Ukraine were to win, ie they manage to take back all disputed territory in the east? Would they then try to take Crimea back while Russia was at it's weakest?

I did hear a report on one of the news channels a few weeks ago that suggested the people of Crimea still consider themselves Ukrainian, so why not?


Much harder prospect. Crimea is only road-accessible via a narrow isthmus, plus it is home to a large Russian naval base (Sevastopol). It would need a pretty complete Russian military collapse to make that feasible.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
Quite the manifesto on 12:25 - Apr 7 with 1281 viewsChurchman

Quite the manifesto on 10:22 - Apr 7 by Guthrum

You say sanctions are window dressing, but it was reported yesterday that Russian oil revenues are down by $3.6bn for March, about 38% - https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oil-gas-energy-sales-lower-march-ukraine- . Also that the Chinese, while continuing to buy already ordered fuel, are not setting up new contracts - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-china-state-refiners-shun-new-

There is a third outcome, that Ukraine could win the war. Either by defeating all attempts to capture territory (excluding Crimea or pre-existing Donbas separatist regions), or by causing a collapse in morale and fighting effectiveness in the Russian army. Astonishing as that might have sounded in mid February, it is something really on the cards. Then they can negotiate from strength - if Putin survives a loss of such magnitude.

NATO were never going to use the nuclear threat unless a member state was under attack. Which Ukraine was not. The deterrant isn't in the bin, as the West has done pretty much everything except sending troops over the border in terms of supporting Kyiv, yet the Russians have not done anything substantive about that. Neither have they used chemical, bio or nuclear weapons, even when militarily stymied.


I don’t know how accurate the attached is, but it makes for interesting reading and suggests that even if Russia oil and gas takes a short term dent, Putin and co are still laughing all the way to the bank.

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-93-russias-720m-per-day?s=r

I’d love Ukraine to win the war of course but they won’t, though that depends on your definition of win. It looks like Putins wish for the whole country and putting his puppets in might have to wait as his army and Air Force looked to have over reached themselves with what they have, but their claimed regions and coastal areas will be secured. All those casualties for that? Awful.

The survival of a rump of Ukraine and it’s leadership was unthinkable when Putin first invaded. The Ukrainians have been amazing.
0
Quite the manifesto on 17:16 - Apr 7 with 1179 viewsGuthrum

Quite the manifesto on 12:25 - Apr 7 by Churchman

I don’t know how accurate the attached is, but it makes for interesting reading and suggests that even if Russia oil and gas takes a short term dent, Putin and co are still laughing all the way to the bank.

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-93-russias-720m-per-day?s=r

I’d love Ukraine to win the war of course but they won’t, though that depends on your definition of win. It looks like Putins wish for the whole country and putting his puppets in might have to wait as his army and Air Force looked to have over reached themselves with what they have, but their claimed regions and coastal areas will be secured. All those casualties for that? Awful.

The survival of a rump of Ukraine and it’s leadership was unthinkable when Putin first invaded. The Ukrainians have been amazing.


One thing to bear in mind from those figures (only had a chance to quickly skim the article so far) is that the oil/gas was "bought" some ime previously, i.e. those are previously negotiated contracts being fulfilled. There is an inherent delay in the system. The thing to look at is new sales going forward. How much of a dent Russia's income from exports takes in the coming months.

Part of the oil companies' argument was that simply cutting off payments would break contracts and leave them liable to penalties. Formal sanctions give them some protection from that. But it's a matter of who continues to trade with Russia in the future will make a difference on their economic state.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
Quite the manifesto on 17:21 - Apr 7 with 1176 viewspositivity

89 mentions of "nazi" in one article, bizarre and chilling in equal amount

Poll: do you do judo and/or do you do voodoo?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024