Maybe what was said on CNN earlier is correct.
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 and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Maybe what was said on CNN earlier is correct.
Being reported on BloombergLaw, which is credible. Could well be this though:
Even if he succeeds in Kyiv, are Russia really capable on holding onto entire Ukraine? 44 million people who don't want them there, there will be resistance for a long time and you will need troops in all major cities to make it any realistic to continue.
So, although nowhere near the most important thing going on right now, but are Republicans still going with their pro-Russia/Putin stance?
He knows he will have to kill tens of thousands of Ukrainians, often civilians while the world watches to meet his goals, which won't resonate well at home either. So there is the need to end this as soon as possible.
Coincidentally they've picked non-NATO countries to target, for a reason.
Although there is not much hope but we simply must not allow Russia take Ukraine because it's quite clear they will not stop there. Every country that is not a part of NATO will be an easy target.
Happy to be corrected and to listen to an opposing argument but there are historical precedents for massive economic and trade sanctions having the desired effect and stopping great military powers. My understanding of how the British eventually defeated Napoleon was through a massive game of economic chess which harmed him immensely and was one of the reasons for the downfall of a seemingly invincible land army (it wasn't just Russia and Spain that caused his fall, it was the larger strategic war with Britain and her trade empire too)
I understand people saying that direct confrontation would risk WW3 but major economic sanctions and a massive cultural wave of Anti-Putin sentiment (Sports, the arts, social media) could do big things, especially when the Russian people realize how hated their country will become through no fault of their own. I also don't buy the idea that Russia could get everything they need from China or India without some huge concessions being made.
I understand people saying that direct confrontation would risk WW3 but major economic sanctions and a massive cultural wave of Anti-Putin sentiment (Sports, the arts, social media) could do big things, especially when the Russian people realize how hated their country will become through no fault of their own. I also don't buy the idea that Russia could get everything they need from China or India without some huge concessions being made.
you mean a devoted russian and pro-putin nationalist, who realizes the war can not be won and then fails at assassinating Putin?
I hope not
His early presidency was almost defined by the war with Chechnya — it fought for its independence by fighting a guerrilla war in Chechnya itself & setting up terrorist attacks all over Russia (with the help of radicalized islamists). Putin made a deal with Kadyrov (Akhmad Kadyrov, the father of the current leader, Ramzan) — a leader of one of the biggest & influential local clans, essentially buying his loyalty. Putin pays for everything, giving them full reign over the region and they stop the terrorist attacks & stay in Russia. Akhmad was later blown up by his enemies and Ramzan stepped in in his place, keeping the same deal. His individual loyalty to Putin is, apparently, infinite but he doesn’t consider anyone else aside of him to be an authority.
I asked this before, but what stops him from marching on to other countries as well? Are the UK, US, Germany, France etc. going to sit by and watch as every non NATO country in Europe becomes Russian territory?
And I will also add a demand that anyone pedalling Russian propaganda here shall be issued a permaban as well.
This is an important point. We might see Russia forcefully redrawing Europe. I'm 100% confident they won't touch Finland but Georgia is a realistic next option, although the Georgian government seems to be pro-Russian so far.
The problem is whether or not they have the will to impose sanctions that will hurt their own interests.
If Russia were completely isolated from the western world economically then they will be ruined. There's a lot of people with both personal and national interests who may work against that. From politicians to businesses to banks - There's been a lot of Russian money thrown around which has seriously compromising effects.
Got it. feck them.
You can ask whatever question you want and they feign offence and explode. It was the same at Lavrov's briefing earlier where he started lamenting journalists' bad manners after spending too much time in Ukraine.
I'd like to believe this would end here. It won't.
Belarus and Georgia are Russian in all but name.
An update from Kofman, who got a lot right so far:
I feel this time nato won't be acting softly softly.
The sky news reporter absoutely loving that he rattled that the russian spokesperson.
Strikes me as particularly interesting this. A load of what the Russians have been throwing around in recent times has been projection and mirroring, they do X, and then accuse others of it. We know how much Putin has taken from the state/people and given to his oligarch mates and gangsters, so that part fits. The interesting part given the projection, and accusation of the Ukrainian leadership being neo-nazi drug addicts, does that mean we have Putin going to war, with access to nuclear weaponry, while off his face on drugs? Putin is telling us he is dangerous and off his face at this point right? His actions being so erratic, taking class A drugs would certainly explain his decision making in all this.
Still I believe Trump has a reputation for drug taking during his time, I guess now we know what he had in common with Putin.
I wonder what this guy's background is. He's clearly extremely knowledgaeble.
He is right, Ukrane got hit what 1 or 2 nights with missiles. That’s not really going to soften up any resistance. Look how long Baghdad got hit before any feet hit the ground, it was weeks of bombardment from the ground, air and sea.
Putin knows that Zelenskyy will never agree to that.
Quoting Russian officials is not endorsing them.
Banning anybody who is providing direct quotes from Russian politicians is surely a mistake. It's not the same as propaganda if we're discussing it.
Unless you just want to ignore that these sentiments from Russians exist, in which case our conversation will be blind in one eye.
Seconded
Yes, NATO will only take military action, can only take such action, when one of its members (12 originally now 30 at the last count I believe) is attacked. It was set up to give protection to member countries from the then Soviet Union in 1949.
Nobody's going/possibly could, stop Putin, except perhaps his fellow Russians, which is why sanctions against the powerful elite around Putin is being targeted.
Just an American academic who focuses on studying the Russian military. I don't think he has a leg up in terms of any other kind of insider access, it just seems like he's a very good analyst.
Tough choice. A Finladization of Ukraine is probably the best case scenario for Ukraine. The problem though is that Russia might invade next year too and then the Resistence is going to be lower.
Easy to say in hindsight, but Ukraine should have maintained a neutral policy, keeping Russia happy while getting stronger until NATO is more willing to admit them. While I know that it is their right to do whatever they want with Ukraine, and Russia is 100% the aggressor, I do not think that they were very wise into going all in for NATO. Cause until you are not part of NATO, NATO probably won't help you if the worst comes.
It's now getting to a point beyond that though (Now Sweden and Finland appear to be being told to watch it). I just don't see how the likes of Germany and Italy continue to tread carefully with their economic interests when this happening.
To be fair renouncing DNR & LNR’s independence just after announcing it would be a move that even Russian propaganda would fail to explain. Probably.
I don’t think so. Any Occupation will just breed “terrorism” and a long sporadic fight. I have a feeling this is still just some kind of crazy flex by Russia and they’ll pull out after threatening everyone and showing how strong and relevant they still are for a few months.
We should offer them both immediate nato membership... but we wont
Putin doesn't want Russia to directly border Nato countries. He wants countries in between as a buffer but he wants them to be pro-Russian instead of pro-Nato. He's got that with Belarus and Georgia whilst Finland stays neutral. Ukraine was the only one actively pursuing membership. I think his goal in Ukraine is to install a more Russia-friendly government that will drop plans to join Nato then the troops will withdraw.
He can tolerate Estonia and Latvia because its a single front and it's too late, they're already in. If Ukraine joined, it would give Nato two fronts to attack from.
If they even think of doing this to another European country, all bets are off. We should defo go in.
Well a more successfull Stauffenberg I should have said
(I don't think that the probable outcome of the war was the main motivation for Stauffenberg.)
I read a tweet on Twitter that there are supposedly even many high officials, politicians and militaries in russia that are surprised about what happens now. Putins determination and lunacy seem to not only suprise the western governments. So I wouldn't rule out that there are some former Putin supporters that might turn their back, especially if the protests in Russia grow.
Do you think thats possible?