yeah, that's why I'm asking. Probably Putin will try everything to stop that middle class from fleeing away, who don't buy his crap.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
yeah, that's why I'm asking. Probably Putin will try everything to stop that middle class from fleeing away, who don't buy his crap.
Yeah, I know, thanks. I think there’s a ferry to Estonia as well… there’re options, it’s not full isolation, at least yet.
I’m not entirely sure. In his speech about true Russians, nation traitors and cleansing of Russia he didn’t seem to care much about them. In this case I feel that the ideological motives are more important to him than his country’s economy. FSB officers are thoroughly questioning a lot of people that are leaving the country but I haven’t heard about them stopping anyone from leaving (aside from those who were already prosecuted).
Maybe not. People leaving who don't believe his propaganda will only strengthen his control over Russia.
A weakened and economically crippled Russia may choose to fire off nukes anyway, regardless of whether NATO directly intervenes on the ground.
Who do you think Putin holds responsible for the loss of 15,000 personnel? Just Ukraine?
Had it not been for the West's intervention, this war would already be over. The point being, as many have stated, that the West is already engaged in this war.
Who do you think Putin holds responsible for the loss of 15,000 personnel? Just Ukraine?
Had it not been for the West's intervention, this war would already be over. The point being, as many have stated, that the West is already engaged in this war.
Last edited:
So in your wise opinion , the west should not have given any arms to Ukraine so they would just get slaughtered quicker?
So, nothing should have been done to stem the tide of the Russian invasion?
It seems Russia is going to try to attack Odessa without having anything on land to link up with. This could be a disaster for them.
That would be one of the most stupid actions of this stupid war...
Maybe they just want to scare Ukraine to commit troops to Odessa, that would have more impact elsewhere.
Yeah I work in IT with a Russian team (Im not in Russia) and a sht load of them have set up companies in Serbia and Montenegro etc to keep working with the US and UK etc So I guess there are ways and means to bypass the sanctions etc but it fking sucks having to uproot from your own country. I guess Putin might have to do something if they are loosing the high tech workforce? IT, Lawyers, Journalists etc
This is what it sounds like. Allow Putin to slaughter as many as required, possibly using chemical weapons along the way to expedite the conclusion.
Yeah a feint would make more sense, I can't believe they'd do something so senseless, despite all the evidence of the past few weeks.
...because Ukraine is not a real country anyway
There are only a handful of journalists left in Russia (probably only the staff of Novaya Gazeta), the rest are propaganda workers that aren't going anywhere and lawyers are not what you think that they are in a country where less than 1% of cases end up in acquittal. As for IT — yeah, they've introduced some tax cuts for the companies, I believe, and they also wanted to expel IT workers from the mandatory conscription. Somehow I'm not sure that it's going to be enough.
Stop this insane scaremongering. Russia is not ending the world over an economic crash.
should the ukraine surrender at this stage?
Its clear they are only going to get their country smashed and more people will die
Russia are not going to retreat that much is obvious
Its clear they are only going to get their country smashed and more people will die
Russia are not going to retreat that much is obvious
They don't intend to.
Why would they surrender when they are literally on the cusp of turning the tables on the Russians ? If anything, they will double down to fight harder because they think they can actually win this.
Last edited:
Are they on the cusp of actually beating Russia?
Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.
You are okay with leaving your homeland and everything else (I guess occupation/family/friends etc.) ? Sounds a bit extreme even though I appreciate the sentiment. Are you a proactive protestor to be this fearful of getting turned in or is it because living standard is drastically going to go down there?
The Russians are bogged down and not making much progress, so you could say the conflict is a stalemate at the moment. Putin is quickly running out of resources to add to what he already has in Ukraine, at a time when the Ukrainian side are getting armed to the gills with highly sophisticated NATO weapons, so there may come a tipping point where the Ukrainians will begin to gain the upper hand. 90% of Ukrainians polled believe they will win this.
Last edited:
Why are people so keen for Ukraine to surrender?
I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.
Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration inLondon Londonsburg when our Motherland nukes New York
I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.
Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration in
One of the most infantile posts in this thread by the way. It's so hyperbolic and ignorant, I felt like this needed to be pointed out.
Yes it is. But the demand of Ukraine to simply surrender is also equally dumb and riles me up to no end.
He's obviously not OK with it. The situation is terrible for all involved.
This isn't meant for you by the way but it reminds me of a lot of the talk about refugees/asylum seekers during the Syrian civil war for instance. For the most part, people really don't want to leave their homes, even if the economic opportunities may be better elsewhere. Its horrible in many ways. People don't do it on a whim. Its absolutely gut-wrenching to leave your home and family and friends and culture behind.
Nobody is 'keen' for Ukraine to surrender for fecks sake. If Russia had decided to launch an invasion of the USA, France, Japan or the UK (ie countries that have the capability to put up a sustained fight), nobody would be saying they should just surrender. If they had militaries equivalent to those countries, nobody would be saying it either.
Its not my place to tell Ukrainians whether they should 'surrender' or not but people are also being ridiculously hyperbolic with regards to the war sometimes and the flow of it, based partly on our own biases towards Ukraine and wanting to see them win and a general perception that Russia were going to win within a few days pre the war. Ukraine are not 'on the verge' of turning this around ffs; they have very little access to the sea, most of their southern coast is taken, Mariupol is essentially rubble and their capital is under an (ineffective) siege.
I imagine when people are talking about surrender, they're coming at it from the pov (rightly or wrongly) that Ukraine will ultimately lose anyway. In that case, is it better to 'lose' now and lose 10,000 people for instance or lose in 3 months and lose 100,000 people and have Mariupol and Kiev and Odessa bombed to rubble?
This presupposes that Ukraine will ultimately 'lose' of course, which may (hopefully not)vnot be the case.
I've been saying from day 1. Russia cant take all of Ukraine and Ukraine cant beat Russia. To me its obvious but all the war experts have been saying otherwise.
Russia will take the east and south and fk up the rest of Ukraine as much as possible to deter them trying to get it back. They are already digging in. There is one thing defending a territory and another attacking it. Basically Ukraine will be annexed. Russia will let its citizens suffer for a few decades and link with China, Iran etc in the meantime. Then in 20 years or maybe sooner they will start to make deals with the west to reduce sanctions. Maybe sooner. The more they fk up Ukraine the stronger their negotiation stance will be. i.e we will let you have kiev if you let us have the south and east and stop sanctions. thats what they want. The only question is how long the Ukrainians can resist. Mariupol is key then Odesa. thats my armchair assessment
What's your definition of "lose"?
In my view Kyiv will not be captured, the Ukrainian government will remain in place with Zelenskyy as president, the bulk of the Ukrainian armed forces will still be intact, and Ukraine will not disarm as demanded by Putin.
They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.
Any scenario where a foreign army holds territory in your country and has soldiers occupying some of your cities and have demolished others is a loss in my eyes. That isn't normal. if the British army were still mostly intact, London was unharmed, Johnson was still president but Russia had occupied Scotland, that isn't a win (in fact, Johnson staying would make it a double whammy).
Of course, Ukraine may be able to drive the Russians back entirely, which would be great. Or this truncated Ukraine may rise up, join the EU and become much more prosperous.Also great in many ways.
But I think people have lost sight a little bit of what 'winning' is, because of perceptions at the beginning of the conflict about how easy it would be for the Russians.
The longer Russia stays bogged down not moving forward, the more likely Ukraine will be able to drive them back and actually beat them. Maintaining momentum is a huge deal for an invasion force.
In the last 2 weeks Russia has barely moved an inch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Ukraine will begin to launch successful counter attacks and force them into a retreat.
Not really okay but at this point I’m heavily leaning towards it. Ideally it’s not going to be permanent but then nothing’s more permanent than temporary things. Most of my friends have left already, it’s really not a great environment for anyone who, well, can think and can’t compromise with his consciousness. I’ve already did enough protesting to justify a prison sentence under the new law — and even if we discount personal safety it’s simply soul-crushing to live inside something like this Russia. The Nazi Germany comparisons have been done to death already but there’s no better example.
Not to mention that my area of expertise is very much contrarian to the core ideas that lie underneath Putin’s regime and every day they keep reminding us that they’re not going to tolerate that anymore — if you teach contemporary art, critical theory etc. properly you can’t really avoid critically assessing the reality around you.
So yeah. I haven’t decided on it 100% but at this point I fear that I don’t have much choice on the matter, so I’m finishing all the unfinished business that I have here and then reassess the situation one last time.
Ukraine's military is great at defending, but I just don't see them being able to seriously threaten with any large scale offensive.
As long as Russia keeps aggressing, civilian lives will be lost regardless of whether NATO is there or not. NATO can't possibly protect every life, especially if Putin threatens nuclear war each time he fancies a go.
If Russia is allowed to annex land so easily every time through peaceful surrender, they will be encouraged to keep going West because it is just too simple for them.
There needs to be something to actually deter Putin, like a goddamn tough fight, because I think he is simply shrugging away the sanctions and creating a siege mentality in his country so they join his mental cause.
I very much doubt it. You can't claim to have annexed a country where the capital city and most of the country remains out of your hands, the bulk of the opposition forces remain intact, the opposition government remains in power, and weapons supporting them continue to flood into the country.
Russia may well occupy some of the East and South, but they would have to tie up large numbers of Russian troops permanently in order to keep it all. Those troops won't then be available to quell uprisings elsewhere, a lack made all the more significant by the personnel and equipment losses that Russia has already suffered and which will only increase day by day from here on.
In my view, this war - couple with the effect of sanctions - is going to leave Russia permanently weakened as a military force to a significant degree. We will look back and see pre-invasion Russia as being at the zenith of a military strength that will never be regained.
No serious military analyst thinks Kyiv is going to be captured at this point, none. Russia would need a lengthy ceasefire and massive redeployment of troops to make it possible. I'm sorry but this post is out of date and not in keeping with realities on the ground.
How about the 60,000 Russian military personnel that will likely be out of action - dead, wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - in another 3 weeks from now?