Than me. 
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Than me.
no, that’s right. Even in his head he misspells things.
They can just do what they did before, but now officially have Russia claim the occupied lands. I doubt they are precious enough about having to have every inch of Luhansk and Donetsk. Add a few gains like Mariupol and then bed in and create an indefinite front.
If Putin remains in power, I reckon that some or all of Russia's currently frozen gold and foreign exchange reserves - that's $300 billion in total - will be seized and given to Ukraine for post-war rebuilding.
Good thread on how sanctions are killing Russia:
If NATO committed to defending Ukrainian territory, then you have handed Russia a means of probing NATO directly, and a pathway to escalation. That's an incredibly dangerous thing to do.
I agree. Putin's posture towards the West was aggressive and disruptive even before this. He cannot be trusted and so long as he is in power, he is a danger to European security. There's no normal relations with Russia until he is gone. However, we can take that one at a time - his removal doesn't does not need to be a condition of peace between Ukraine and Russia. It should be a condition of normality between the West and Russia / an objective of western policy after this.
Guys, I get why there's isn't a no fly zone all over Ukraine. Even if we wanted to, it's hard to implement where it is needed (Mariupol) because the skies there are protected by Russian AA batteries on their lands. No way are we bombing Russia.
I just think we can do more on the Western side though. There's a huge number of refugees on that side and it would be a damn shame for humanity if we can't even protect a small, tiny area of Ukrainian land. And we don't even need our planes or boots on the ground to do it.
I agree we are probably doing the right thing strategically and diplomatically by refusing as far as possible to get involved, but I feel I'm losing a bit of my humanity as each day goes on as we remain steadfastly inactive, and now we might not even protect civilians literally within eyeshot of us at the border.
It just doesn't 'feel' right.
I think even an insane person would have gotten the hang of it by the 10th attempt.
Imagine having the 4th largest military budget on Earth and being this shit at war
All a bit United at the moment
Having the most nukes and a leader who rides around shirtless on horses helps to create the facade of toughness. Fortunately, we're seeing there's little meat on the bone beyond this perception.
A paper tiger if there ever was one.
What's the basis for this assumption? I don't think we've seen any evidence that Putin intends to shuffle off in 5 years. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite. He intends to stay in power until he dies and that could be 10-15 years (or even more since we have that Chuck Grassley seeking re-election at 89 ffs). Also, I think the nuclear calculus is backward. If Putin is still around in 5, 10, 15 years and he's losing his mind even more during that time, I think the chance he uses nukes would be exponentially higher in 5-10 years than it is now. It definitely seems riskier to just let him stay in power with an (unsupported) assumption he'll quietly go away in 5 years.
Russia is a militaristic state of strongmen. Putin will know that he has to find a way out and has to have known this before Ukraine. He can't bank on staying in power forever. Maybe his aim is to stay in office until he dies, we can't know either way, and as you say Grassley is 89, Pelosi is 82, Biden is 79. But the older he gets the more people around him will be thinking about post-Putin Russia which is a very real factor that you cannot dismiss, especially in a state like Russia. His entire standing is based on being a strongman, not an eighty year old pensioner. If he stays in power, I don't see him staying beyond five or six years whether he wants to or not. In fact, much of the US strategy might be oriented toward trying to force him out early (making those people ask the questions that maybe wouldn't have been asked until nearer the end of the decade).
Yeah, I don't agree that Putin would step down or be removed naturally in 5 years. He's surrounded himself by yes men and I don't see any evidence some internal mechanism would remove him in 5 years. Those types never give up power unless they die. No way would I want to gamble on Putin leaving in 5 years. The best strategy at this point does seem to be to keep sanctions, have Putin's removal as a necessary condition for normalizing relations with the west and continue to apply pressure for him leaving now. I think it's far too dangerous to let him remain in power and hope something happens in 5, 10, 15 years after his actions in the last few months. I don't see a problem with anything Biden said so far, it's a sound approach.
Presidential advisor has to issue a statement telling soldiers to refrain from insulting Muslims.
Yeah I think that's the way it seems to be going. I'm not sure it will work. It could, but equally likely is that Russia plays the Eurasian market and cuts itself off from the European market. EU states are not far away from no longer needing Russian energy, but the Asian market absolutely needs it. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Russia reenters the European/American system even post-Putin. All speculative at this point but signs are an Oceanic sphere is taking shape, helped or primed by the invasion of Ukraine, and that this sphere may well be cut off, Cold War style, from the Eurasian/Chinese sphere. I think the US going back to Maduro for oil and trying to prize Iran away from China are key signs of this, but that is another topic for another thread. Basic point is that it isn't certain Russia will reset to a Western facing strategy post-Putin or that whoever/whatever replaces him will be more friendly.
The entire purpose of him staying in power indefinitely is because he would be arrested and executed if were to leave. He is very aware of this, which is why he won’t relinquish control until he’s overthrown from within. Gorbachev is still alive and kicking in his 90s and Putin is in far better physical shape than Gorby, and could easily remain in power for another 20-30 years. The world shouldn’t be held hostage by a madman with nukes for that time, which is why he needs to go now. A democratic Russia that loosely integrates into Europe will alleviate a massive burden of pressure on the international system.
It is been said that he won't seek reelection in 2024. On paper at least, the next president will have less power from 2024 onwards, and the federal parliament will hold more power.
But the real dynamics of power are much more complex than that. It is not just an almighty president steering everything.
https://carnegiemoscow.org/commentary/81037
I don't see some massive cleavage as possible or desirable for any of the parties. China and the west have economies that are too intertwined for that and long term, all sides benefit more from continuing the integrated global economy as opposed to splitting into isolated regional economies. For Russia, they 100% need to start building a more rounded economy, not one based on resource exportation, which Putin has done, and that would inevitably lead to greater integration into the global economy (not just becoming reliant on China).
Really regret choosing to give a good chunk of my donations to the British Red Cross and the DEC now. I can far more readily see how the Ukrainian Red Cross and more-focussed Ukrainian charities are making some difference on the ground.
A Russia that was guaranteed certain security matters (I'm talking post-Putin) and autonomy, would also be a potential economic behemoth because of its Eurasian position. With its population size, land mass, and energy/rare earth materials, its economy should be roughly twice the size of Germany's (or almost half that of the United States) instead of just under $2tn. The question is whether the Russian ruling class will sacrifice whatever they view as essential to a nationalistic Russia to reenter the European/American order.
On the other hand, Globalization as it was would appear to be dead. So maybe the "new Russia" isn't so easily achieved.
Last edited:
Even if that conclusion seemed viable in Nov 2020, I don't think that view still holds up in Feb 2022 after all we've seen since the invasion began. That article reads like an artifact of a completely different time reading it now.
Anyway, I think @harms of all posters in this thread is best qualified to make these types of assessments rather than those of us that live in the west.
Interesting indeed. I wonder how representative of Russia that view is? From the outside certainly you’d think that if people felt the economic pressure of the sanctions they’d at least expect a glorious victory in return
And most of their silo-based nukes wouldn’t even launch. I knew a missile tech in the early 90s who said at the time that roughly 60 to 70% of their silos had water in the base.
Going by everything that we know it’s a certainty that he at least plans to get himself re-elected in 2024.
As for the article, it’s simply not viable as of now, too much had changed since then. There are two political observers that I’ve used to listened to that had great sources in almost every big political institution in Russia, Pertsov & Gaaza. They’ve had a podcast together where they’ve discussed the behind-the-scenes stuff on every major decision. After the 24th they’ve released one last episode, stating that their profession is dead, Russian politics is dead and we now only have one actor in this mess, Vladimir Putin.
There’s a clear edit in that clip at 0:52, right in the middle of “Russia had no right to lose this operation in Ukraine”. I wonder if he had said “war” and they’ve had to edit that. It would make sense since you can’t “lose” an “operation” (by the logic of Russian language, you can only fail one).
He could choose to make someone else president at some point, which of course doesn't mean he cedes any power.
Which begs the question whether he would agree to 'step down' if negotiations ever reach the point of agreeing Russian defeat.
You want the Hollywood ending of all the good guys saving the day, that's why it doesn't feel right.
We've done all we can do and will continue to do exactly that. Anything beyond what we've already done will mean we risk a lot more for everyone.
As much as I don't want any more Ukrainians to die or be displaced, it's either them or the whole world. What would you rather do?
You know things have gone terribly wrong when the propagandists are being censored.Both scenarios are unlikely. He had already tried the first scenario with Medvedev and ended up feeling too threatened. As for him stepping down... it's simply impossible, simply because once he's not in complete control, he's vulnerable. And he doesn't want to be vulnerable.
You want the Hollywood ending of all the good guys saving the day, that's why it doesn't feel right.
We've done all we can do and will continue to do exactly that. Anything beyond what we've already done will mean we risk a lot more for everyone.
As much as I don't want any more Ukrainians to die or be displaced, it's either them or the whole world. What would you rather do?
Protecting people/refugees in the West is hardly a Hollywood ending. It won't even affect the overall battle at all, never mind end it. It justs means we save a few more lives, that's really it.
Didn't they pass a law making former presidents immune from prosecution a few years ago?