Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

calodo2003 said:
Now imagine every Herschel Walker asking questions…

Click to expand...

He’s the best.

When the war started he said that Russia are communists and communist countries inevitably starve, and Ukraine has a lot of grain, so Russia invaded them to take their grain and feed Russian people.
 
Revan said:
He’s the best.

When the war started he said that Russia are communists and communist countries inevitably starve, and Ukraine has a lot of grain, so Russia invaded them to take their grain and feed Russian people.
Click to expand...

Just saw a poll where low IQ Herschel is trailing Warnock by 5. Not sure if that will hold, but encouraging.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Purely speculating, what would Russia gain from trading/economical perspective, if they would control all of Ukraines south and Transnistria? Strategically, this just seems like pure land grabbing effort, after government change in Kyiv failed. I know Donbass is rich in natural resources, but what good is it, if half the world has plans in place to stop trading with you, there's no way China will buy everything. Not to mention the whole infrastructure there needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
 
ShoePolish said:
Purely speculating, what would Russia gain from trading/economical perspective, if they would control all of Ukraines south and Transnistria? Strategically, this just seems like pure land grabbing effort, after government change in Kyiv failed. I know Donbass is rich in natural resources, but what good is it, if half the world has plans in place to stop trading with you, there's no way China will buy everything. Not to mention the whole infrastructure there needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
Click to expand...

It would cripple Ukraine. As for Russia, no discernible benefit whatsoever for the reasons you mention unless you have an 18th century geopolitical mindset. The idea they could hold onto that territory is laughable to be honest.
 
ShoePolish said:
Purely speculating, what would Russia gain from trading/economical perspective, if they would control all of Ukraines south and Transnistria? Strategically, this just seems like pure land grabbing effort, after government change in Kyiv failed. I know Donbass is rich in natural resources, but what good is it, if half the world has plans in place to stop trading with you, there's no way China will buy everything. Not to mention the whole infrastructure there needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
Click to expand...

I don't think Putin has a coherent strategy. He knows he made a massive mistake by invading given what has happened over the past 75 days, but doesn't have a way to get out of it without looking like a feckless loser domestically. He therefore has to continue until he can point to a tangible victory he can sell to the Russian public. Trouble is, the damage of sanctions is greatly outpacing any military gains he's made (military gains are actually more so a quagmire than actual gains), to where he genuinely can't win under either scenario. Therefore the only plausible outcome will be that Russia gets hit hard domestically throughout the summer and beyond, to the point where it destabilizes him from within.
 
Last edited:
ShoePolish said:
Purely speculating, what would Russia gain from trading/economical perspective, if they would control all of Ukraines south and Transnistria? Strategically, this just seems like pure land grabbing effort, after government change in Kyiv failed. I know Donbass is rich in natural resources, but what good is it, if half the world has plans in place to stop trading with you, there's no way China will buy everything. Not to mention the whole infrastructure there needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
Click to expand...
It would destroy Ukraine as we know it.
 
Raoul said:
Just saw a poll where low IQ Herschel is trailing Warnock by 5. Not sure if that will hold, but encouraging.
Click to expand...

All we need now is Warnock to demolish him in a debate.

Back on topic, Transnistria could become a problem if something pops up there as Moldova just does not have the resources to contain nor counter the enemy's shenanigans. What would be the options for both Moldova and NATO in that potential scenario? We cannot let that pro-Russia enclave open a new front against Ukraine, but we also cannot let it destabilize Moldova either.
 
Last edited:
Wind the clock back to what we knew and expected 75 days ago, incredible that Kharkiv has held.
 
TMDaines said:


I believe the only two Europeans left to visit Ukraine are Macron and Scholz.
Click to expand...

This Tweet is a bit ignoring several visits by members of the parliament ( and a few days ago even the president of the parliament), so it should better say the German government is back.

I know this sounds a bit nitpicky, but I think it's important because the Bundeswehr gets it's mission orders from the parliament, not from the government in Germany.
 
stefan92 said:
This Tweet is a bit ignoring several visits by members of the parliament ( and a few days ago even the president of the parliament), so it should better say the German government is back.

I know this sounds a bit nitpicky, but I think it's important because the Bundeswehr gets it's mission orders from the parliament, not from the government in Germany.
Click to expand...

I think that's indeed a bit too nitpicky, since the government are the ones setting the agenda, both in terms of policy and in terms of public discourse. So naturally they are the most important people to travel to Ukraine. And I really don't understand how this is anything but a terrible look for Scholz.
It strengthens the impression that it's actually the greens, who are finding pragmatic solutions, while Scholz and his party have their priorities wrong and waste time.
 
do.ob said:
And I really don't understand how this is anything but a terrible look for Scholz.
It strengthens the impression that it's actually the greens, who are finding pragmatic solutions, while Scholz and his party have their priorities wrong and waste time.
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that's not an impression but just a fact?
 
stefan92 said:
I think we can all agree that's not an impression but just a fact?
Click to expand...

Sure, we can also call it a fact. Which is why I don't understand why Scholz would allow for Baerbock to be there instead of him.
 
Last edited:
RedDevilQuebecois said:
All we need now is Warnock to demolish him in a debate.

Back on topic, Transnistria could become a problem if something pops up there as Moldova just does not have the resources to contain not counter the enemy's shenanigans. What would be the options for both Moldova and NATO in that potential scenario? We cannot let that pro-Russia enclave open a new front against Ukraine, but we also cannot let it destabilize Moldova either.
Click to expand...

The Russian troops in Transnistria are apparently not much more than security guards - very low grade - and incapable of mounting any kind of proper offensive either west of east.

"Arty Green", the Ukrainian officer on the Donbas front line who comes across as very capable and level-headed, said in one of his recent video interviews that Ukraine could take all of Transnistria in 1 - 2 days if Moldova asked them to.
 
do.ob said:
Sure, we can also call it a fact. Which is why I don't understand why Scholz would allow for Baerbock to be there instead of him.
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't have a choice. If Baerbock simply said "I'm going there, like it or not", Scholz is hardly in a position to sack her for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.