Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Mciahel Goodman said:
You're living in a fantasy if you believe that people's willingness to sacrifice living standards for what, for most, is a foreign war has no end. And not everyone who disgrees with you is a troll or Russian troll.
Click to expand...

You seem to think US/EU is going to force Ukraine to the negotiating table at some point? Is that right?
 
DT12 said:
Thank you for writing this. Because yes, the lengthy post I wrote in the Newbies section very clearly stated that I do NOT support Putin (I wrote about the sense of bewilderment that existed here in St Petersburg in the days after February 24th, and how almost everyone here has either a friend, relative or colleague over in Ukraine in danger of getting shelled by Russian bombs now), I wrote that Putin's stupid, rambling, hour-long faux-intellectual lecture on Ukraine's legitimacy as a sovereign state falls apart if you go further back than his convenient starting point of 1922, I wrote about how his promise to de-Nazify Ukraine of its Jewish-installed (Kolomoiskiy) Jewish president was dumber than sh*t, and - it may not have been here but it was certainly somewhere online, I'll write it now anyway - ANY moral authority Putin may have ever felt he had over 'the West' and its war-mongering was napalmed when his bombs killed Ukrainian children in - among many other places - the theatre at Mariupol.

Let me state clearly: Putin is in the wrong here. And I don't write that because of any childish moral bullying in this thread about "you're defending war crimes!", but because my entire reason for posting on this forum having only lurked on the forum for 8 years was to offer a perspective that simply isn't getting posted here, but it needs to be. All I have done is offer my opinion on why Putin is going to win this war. And for that, I've been publicly called a "c*nt" by that guy who announced he's putting me on ignore (what is it with proponents of 'freedom and tolerance' and instantly shutting themselves off from alternate viewpoints while calling people "c*nts"? Is this what Western liberal democracy looks like these days? Is this what you're calling upon Russia to become?).

Europe does actually need to start at least considering that Putin is going to win this. And that in the years to come they are going to have extraordinary economic problems because of the decisions they are making now out of emotion and not calm analysis. I'll say what I said earlier: for all the US and the UK are congratulating the EU for irreversibly cutting themselves off from Russian energy (because it suits the US and UK economically that Europe is doing this; Boris Johnson in particular can't believe his luck in how utterly stupid his old enemy the EU is being right now), the US is still quietly buying all it needs from Russia, including Uranium.

Europe needs to ask itself this question: what would America do now if they were in our position? And the answer would be: not this. This is a country that a month after Saudi Arabia chopped up Khashoggi was selling half a billion dollars of weapons to the regime that did it so they could bomb Yemeni civilians. It's a country that invaded Grenada over a fruit company and Panama over a canal. And I don't write that in any condemnatory way but just as a fact. America is as successful and as powerful as it is because everything it does is in its economic interests. They never make cataclysmic decisions based on emotion or morality. Yet Germany is currently doing that very thing. As is France. And as is Italy. Last week the Prime Minister of Latvia was asked about potential economic problems for his country if the 6th round of Russian sanctions went though. You know what he said? "It's only money". An astonishing reply (but more understandable when you recognise that Eastern Europe's hopeful economic strategy is: "the United States will continue to bankroll us until the end of time"). Can you imagine an American politican saying that? "Sure our people are ready to suffer on behalf of another country, it's only money!" His career would be over the next day. This is a country whose elections are essentially decided on gas prices, not morality.

So my points here have been twofold. Firstly, Putin is going to win this war and it is long past time Europe starts to at least entertain this idea and figure out what will come next. And secondly, the prosperity that Western Europe - in particular Germany - has seen over the last 30 years has been due to their supposedly "unreliable" (and oh by the way unremittingly constant) flow of cheap Russian energy (CNN today had an article about how Europe is going to see a shift from the West to the East in terms of power dynamics within the EU). Without this, Germany would not have become the industrial powerhouse it is today. A decade from now Germany and France will be shells of what they were even 5 years ago in terms of the power and influence they have over European politics and business (don't forget, the politically friendless UK is hovering like a vulture ready to swoop in and feed off the EU's weakness). It is a misconception that non-Europeans have that the EU is a united bloc that helps each other out. It isn't, they are all suspicious rivals of one another (you'll notice how silent Poland and Bulgaria have fallen over the last week now that all these Ukrainian refugees are starting to complain about conditions). Putin knows this and is going to create havoc on the European continent in the years to come. And trust me, America is laughing its ass off right now at what Europe is doing, I mean their insane self-sabotage and willingness to float mouth-first onto a massive US energy hook. America is going to profit enormously from this war in the long term which is why they are going to do everything they can to prolong it, against the stated wishes of France and Germany, who will suffer most from it.

Finally: in an earlier post on here I said Donbas would fall to Russia by the end of June. I was mocked for writing it. Today the UK Ministry of Defence projected that Russia will take all of Luhansk within the next 2 weeks and after that Donesk will soon fall. You see, unlike Glaston's tweets, my posts on here are actually based on sober analysis of what's actually going on. For this I'm prepared to be unpopular but I'm not sure I warrant the "war-crime endorsing c*nt" epithet.
Click to expand...
Odd analysis. Even if Europe was floating on to a "massive US energy hook", so what? Better to get the gas from an ally than an enemy. It's not as as the US and Europe aren't friendly with a common culture and decades of being partners!

There's a lot of wishful thinking in this post that confuses russian tactical successes with strategic gains. Let russia bleed itself out, their army is closer to collapsing than it is to winning. It is an odd definition of winning that has Russia temporarily picking up a few destroyed villages in return for the wholesale shattering of its economy, army, alliances, reputation and future.
 
TwoSheds said:
Pretty sure Iran is helping Yemen...it's not "fine" to do nothing about Yemen. But being wankers ref Yemen doesn't make it correct to also be wankers ref Ukraine. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well what I am saying is that obviously when the house next to yours is on fire you will be more motivated to get out and help, than when a house in a different town is on fire.
 
frostbite said:
Yes. Well what I am saying is that obviously when the house next to yours is on fire you will be more motivated to get out and help, than when a house in a different town is on fire.
Click to expand...

This is human nature, yes. You'd like to think we're better than that by now but the fact is we're not.
 
nickm said:
Odd analysis. Even if Europe was floating on to a "massive US energy hook", so what? Better to get the gas from an ally than an enemy. It's not as as the US and Europe aren't friendly with a common culture and decades of being partners!

There's a lot of wishful thinking in this post that confuses russian tactical successes with strategic gains. Let russia bleed itself out, their army is closer to collapsing than it is to winning. It is an odd definition of winning that has Russia temporarily picking up a few destroyed villages in return for the wholesale shattering of its economy, army, alliances, reputation and future.
Click to expand...

It's weird, Russians don't seem to believe oil and gas can ever be replaced as our primary sources of energy. It's already happening.

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-review-2022/
 
nickm said:
Odd analysis. Even if Europe was floating on to a "massive US energy hook", so what? Better to get the gas from an ally than an enemy. It's not as as the US and Europe aren't friendly with a common culture and decades of being partners!

There's a lot of wishful thinking in this post that confuses russian tactical successes with strategic gains. Let russia bleed itself out, their army is closer to collapsing than it is to winning. It is an odd definition of winning that has Russia temporarily picking up a few destroyed villages in return for the wholesale shattering of its economy, army, alliances, reputation and future.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up.
 
Gehrman said:
Of course saying never is stupid but it's a project that will take decades.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it will take decades? California has already managed to run 100% on renewable energy for a little while. Sure it is not already there, but it is not that far away, either. California is the 5th largest economy in the world. France can do it, too. And Germany. If they make it a priority, I don't think they'll need decades.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/02/california-renewable-energy-100/9612901002/
 
DT12 said:
Thank you for writing this. Because yes, the lengthy post I wrote in the Newbies section very clearly stated that I do NOT support Putin (I wrote about the sense of bewilderment that existed here in St Petersburg in the days after February 24th, and how almost everyone here has either a friend, relative or colleague over in Ukraine in danger of getting shelled by Russian bombs now), I wrote that Putin's stupid, rambling, hour-long faux-intellectual lecture on Ukraine's legitimacy as a sovereign state falls apart if you go further back than his convenient starting point of 1922, I wrote about how his promise to de-Nazify Ukraine of its Jewish-installed (Kolomoiskiy) Jewish president was dumber than sh*t, and - it may not have been here but it was certainly somewhere online, I'll write it now anyway - ANY moral authority Putin may have ever felt he had over 'the West' and its war-mongering was napalmed when his bombs killed Ukrainian children in - among many other places - the theatre at Mariupol.

Let me state clearly: Putin is in the wrong here. And I don't write that because of any childish moral bullying in this thread about "you're defending war crimes!", but because my entire reason for posting on this forum having only lurked on the forum for 8 years was to offer a perspective that simply isn't getting posted here, but it needs to be. All I have done is offer my opinion on why Putin is going to win this war. And for that, I've been publicly called a "c*nt" by that guy who announced he's putting me on ignore (what is it with proponents of 'freedom and tolerance' and instantly shutting themselves off from alternate viewpoints while calling people "c*nts"? Is this what Western liberal democracy looks like these days? Is this what you're calling upon Russia to become?).

Europe does actually need to start at least considering that Putin is going to win this. And that in the years to come they are going to have extraordinary economic problems because of the decisions they are making now out of emotion and not calm analysis. I'll say what I said earlier: for all the US and the UK are congratulating the EU for irreversibly cutting themselves off from Russian energy (because it suits the US and UK economically that Europe is doing this; Boris Johnson in particular can't believe his luck in how utterly stupid his old enemy the EU is being right now), the US is still quietly buying all it needs from Russia, including Uranium.

Europe needs to ask itself this question: what would America do now if they were in our position? And the answer would be: not this. This is a country that a month after Saudi Arabia chopped up Khashoggi was selling half a billion dollars of weapons to the regime that did it so they could bomb Yemeni civilians. It's a country that invaded Grenada over a fruit company and Panama over a canal. And I don't write that in any condemnatory way but just as a fact. America is as successful and as powerful as it is because everything it does is in its economic interests. They never make cataclysmic decisions based on emotion or morality. Yet Germany is currently doing that very thing. As is France. And as is Italy. Last week the Prime Minister of Latvia was asked about potential economic problems for his country if the 6th round of Russian sanctions went though. You know what he said? "It's only money". An astonishing reply (but more understandable when you recognise that Eastern Europe's hopeful economic strategy is: "the United States will continue to bankroll us until the end of time"). Can you imagine an American politican saying that? "Sure our people are ready to suffer on behalf of another country, it's only money!" His career would be over the next day. This is a country whose elections are essentially decided on gas prices, not morality.

So my points here have been twofold. Firstly, Putin is going to win this war and it is long past time Europe starts to at least entertain this idea and figure out what will come next. And secondly, the prosperity that Western Europe - in particular Germany - has seen over the last 30 years has been due to their supposedly "unreliable" (and oh by the way unremittingly constant) flow of cheap Russian energy (CNN today had an article about how Europe is going to see a shift from the West to the East in terms of power dynamics within the EU). Without this, Germany would not have become the industrial powerhouse it is today. A decade from now Germany and France will be shells of what they were even 5 years ago in terms of the power and influence they have over European politics and business (don't forget, the politically friendless UK is hovering like a vulture ready to swoop in and feed off the EU's weakness). It is a misconception that non-Europeans have that the EU is a united bloc that helps each other out. It isn't, they are all suspicious rivals of one another (you'll notice how silent Poland and Bulgaria have fallen over the last week now that all these Ukrainian refugees are starting to complain about conditions). Putin knows this and is going to create havoc on the European continent in the years to come. And trust me, America is laughing its ass off right now at what Europe is doing, I mean their insane self-sabotage and willingness to float mouth-first onto a massive US energy hook. America is going to profit enormously from this war in the long term which is why they are going to do everything they can to prolong it, against the stated wishes of France and Germany, who will suffer most from it.

Finally: in an earlier post on here I said Donbas would fall to Russia by the end of June. I was mocked for writing it. Today the UK Ministry of Defence projected that Russia will take all of Luhansk within the next 2 weeks and after that Donesk will soon fall. You see, unlike Glaston's tweets, my posts on here are actually based on sober analysis of what's actually going on. For this I'm prepared to be unpopular but I'm not sure I warrant the "war-crime endorsing c*nt" epithet.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong and you sound a bit scared to me which is understandable given what is predicted to be coming.

1,
If the build up of forces had lead to a capitulation to his demands then Putin would have won. If the initial advance had gone to plan and brutal repression of Ukraine had destroyed any insurrection then Putin would have won. Neither of those things happened so now there are only types of losses from this point forward. In the sense that Russia will never be better off or safer because of this invasion.

2,
Its been just over 100 days. So the idea its long past time Europe starts to think about dealing with Russia is nonsense. The war has only just begun. Russia had first actor advantage, had put Ukraine in the mobilization trap and had 10 months preparation advantage by the end of February. Strategically the number of good options and directions of attack played against Ukraine as it didn't know where the attack would be coming from.

These advantages are running down or gone.

I think the only way left for Russia to force what it wants on Ukraine is full mobilization in Russia and Putin would have already done that if he calculated it as best for him.

3,
At the start of this thread I posted about where would Putin and Russia be if this war became a long one, I don't think he survives. There were very few people who thought Ukraine would survive six months. Wars often ebb and flow and you never know the breaking point until it is reached and often then only in hindsight.

If the Ukrainians are smart they wait until they have everything in place. The better AA systems ready with well trained operators and the new heavy artillery in place with likewise fully trained personnel. They might only get one shot at retaking their country but as long as they are willing to try the west will support them although there will always be dissent on the subject that's democracy for you.


Lastly,

Overenthusiasm on the predictions of the timing of Russia's defeat is understandable. The suffering is awful to watch and everyone wants it over with. The people who predicted this war thought six months at least before the cracks in Russian strategy and its economy become undeniable.
 
DT12 said:
Aaaaaand there it is.

Don't be fooled, Europeans. Raoul (and the other American mods here) is laughing his ass off at you all. This whole "won't anyone think of the Ukrainian children!" shtick is vomit-inducing. They're playing you, as they always have.
Click to expand...

Yikes, someone asked for the mask to come off and then it did. :lol:
 
Gehrman said:
What did people put in their cars?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what is included in these calculations, I have not read the details, only the newspaper articles. However, California is not isolated. California can even produce 200% energy from renewables, and sell the excess to other States.

But anyway, eliminate all gas and oil for the electric grid and for household and industrial production. Isn't that enough for you?

(Google says "passenger vehicles consume only about 26 percent of the oil used worldwide").
 
Last edited:
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.



Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war :lol:
 
Simbo said:
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.



Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war :lol:
Click to expand...

That can’t be true because the number of Russian victories has been escalating. Must be Western propaganda.
/s
 
frostbite said:
I am not sure what is included in these calculations, I have not read the details, only the newspaper articles. However, California is not isolated. California can even produce 200% energy from renewables, and sell the excess to other States.

But anyway, eliminate all gas and oil for the electric grid and for household and industrial production. Isn't that enough for you?

(Google says "passenger vehicles consume only about 26 percent of the oil used worldwide").
Click to expand...

In fairness passenger vehicles will go electric fairly soon most likely (there'll be more electric car sales than fossil fuel in most of the developed world in the next 10 years or so). The difficulty will come in transitioning away in shipping and aviation as well as heavy industry. We're working on it but that won't be quick. We need to throw money and effort at it like crazy now in order to be able to do it in time to save the climate.

The Russians won't be poor over night, particularly given their natural mineral wealth which we will need in order to produce low carbon energy solutions, but we could make a really big dent in oil and gas sales in the next 10 years if the will is there.
 
TwoSheds said:
In fairness passenger vehicles will go electric fairly soon most likely (there'll be more electric car sales than fossil fuel in most of the developed world in the next 10 years or so). The difficulty will come in transitioning away in shipping and aviation as well as heavy industry. We're working on it but that won't be quick. We need to throw money and effort at it like crazy now in order to be able to do it in time to save the climate.

The Russians won't be poor over night, particularly given their natural mineral wealth which we will need in order to produce low carbon energy solutions, but we could make a really big dent in oil and gas sales in the next 10 years if the will is there.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the way batteries are made now, there's not enough material to transition everyone to electric vehicles. Maybe there's enough for the US and the rich European countries, but they also have to be replace pretty often, sounds like a mess. Of course, the big hope is next generation battery technology.
 
Beans said:
Apparently, the way batteries are made now, there's not enough material to transition everyone to electric vehicles. Maybe there's enough for the US and the rich European countries, but they also have to be replace pretty often, sounds like a mess. Of course, the big hope is next generation battery technology.
Click to expand...

Yeah there are loads of different ways to make batteries, just because the current favoured design would be difficult to do due to e.g. limited cobalt supplies, doesn't mean you can't make enough batteries. And in fairness, people are investing in new mines for these exact reasons. The market is there so people are working on ways to supply it.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I think you are wrong and you sound a bit scared to me which is understandable given what is predicted to be coming.

1,
If the build up of forces had lead to a capitulation to his demands then Putin would have won. If the initial advance had gone to plan and brutal repression of Ukraine had destroyed any insurrection then Putin would have won. Neither of those things happened so now there are only types of losses from this point forward. In the sense that Russia will never be better off or safer because of this invasion.

2,
Its been just over 100 days. So the idea its long past time Europe starts to think about dealing with Russia is nonsense. The war has only just begun. Russia had first actor advantage, had put Ukraine in the mobilization trap and had 10 months preparation advantage by the end of February. Strategically the number of good options and directions of attack played against Ukraine as it didn't know where the attack would be coming from.

These advantages are running down or gone.

I think the only way left for Russia to force what it wants on Ukraine is full mobilization in Russia and Putin would have already done that if he calculated it as best for him.

3,
At the start of this thread I posted about where would Putin and Russia be if this war became a long one, I don't think he survives. There were very few people who thought Ukraine would survive six months. Wars often ebb and flow and you never know the breaking point until it is reached and often then only in hindsight.

If the Ukrainians are smart they wait until they have everything in place. The better AA systems ready with well trained operators and the new heavy artillery in place with likewise fully trained personnel. They might only get one shot at retaking their country but as long as they are willing to try the west will support them although there will always be dissent on the subject that's democracy for you.


Lastly,

Overenthusiasm on the predictions of the timing of Russia's defeat is understandable. The suffering is awful to watch and everyone wants it over with. The people who predicted this war thought six months at least before the cracks in Russian strategy and its economy become undeniable.
Click to expand...
Peter Zeihan, DC think tank geopolitics policy advisor who I've been studying since I discovered him recently, says that Russia intend to take land in the west until they control the two gaps that are defensible, the Polish gap and the one in Romania, meaning they intend to take half of Poland and all of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Ukraine and Moldova, and part of Romania. For him, mobilization is inevitable, and being he's one of the few people who predicted invasion I'm willing to give him more attention than most.

I think Putin is waiting for the right political and propaganda moment to mobilize. That propaganda show I keep seeing clips of, with that horrible hag and the duma member who masturbates to nuclear explosion videos, has begun to mention their intention to go further than Ukraine. Interestingly Finland is not due for invasion, as the border is considered defensible. The country has been invaded 50 times, so the paranoia does make some sense. It will be a historic moment when they mobilize, they will need to frame it as necessary, so they may need to push themselves to the breaking point in Ukraine to justify mobilization to their population (i won't call them citizens because they aren't, they're subjects).

Then you have to consider Putin is forcing Ukranians in occupied territories to fight for him, and them dying may be seen as a plus for the Kremlin. Tactics may become more careful when its Russian conscripts dying. This is perhaps a small factor, however.

The country is run by the Mafia, doesn't tend to make for rational, peaceful policy. I wonder if Putin is really in charge because he certainly used to be a puppet for the St. Petersburg crowd and Semion Mogelvich, though no one knows if he's really still on top. This Panorama special is quite good.

 
TwoSheds said:
Yeah there are loads of different ways to make batteries, just because the current favoured design would be difficult to do due to e.g. limited cobalt supplies, doesn't mean you can't make enough batteries. And in fairness, people are investing in new mines for these exact reasons. The market is there so people are working on ways to supply it.
Click to expand...
It apparently it means we're waiting on technology to be able to do it, Zeihan wants to see a 100x increase in funding for battery technology advances that would allow for a full transition. We could start today if the technology was ready.

I'm sure the money is flowing as on today, at least.
 
TwoSheds said:
Yeah there are loads of different ways to make batteries, just because the current favoured design would be difficult to do due to e.g. limited cobalt supplies, doesn't mean you can't make enough batteries. And in fairness, people are investing in new mines for these exact reasons. The market is there so people are working on ways to supply it.
Click to expand...

I thought it was more about limited lithium supply and China sits on most of it.
 
Carolina Red said:
That will never happen.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think it will, and neither does Zeihan. At this point its clear that NATO would annihilate Russia, and in a way this is more worrying, because it means the Russians will only have the options of retreating or using nuclear weapons. The potential for escalation would be high, at best.
 
Simbo said:
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.



Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war :lol:
Click to expand...


@ DT12 13 days left for your prediction to come true of Russia taking all of the Luhansk region. How many of these days will be used up in first taking Severodonetsk?
 
GlastonSpur said:
@ DT12 13 days left for your prediction to come true of Russia taking all of the Luhansk region. How many of these days will be used up in first taking Severodonetsk?
Click to expand...
It is still plausible though. Russia are finally concentratng their forces and their firepower in a way they did not bother to for months. And the Ukrainian army could still withdraw to shorter lines.
 
Frosty said:
It is still plausible though. Russia are finally concentratng their forces and their firepower in a way they did not bother to for months. And the Ukrainian army could still withdraw to shorter lines.
Click to expand...

We shall see. Personally I don't think it is plausible, not least because even if they take Severodonetsk, Lysychansk is well defended and sits on high ground overlooking a river that Russian forces coming from Severodonetsk would need to somehow cross using pontoons, all whilst under artillery fire.

They could try to take Lysychansk from the south instead, but still need to actually get there, all whilst advancing under artillery fire. And even then they'd be fighting uphill.
 
No, I don't think it will, and neither does Zeihan. At this point its clear that NATO would annihilate Russia, and in a way this is more worrying, because it means the Russians will only have the options of retreating or using nuclear weapons. The potential for escalation would be high, at best.
Click to expand...

The point at which Russia goes wide on this, is the point at which NATO will stop caring about what escalatory signals it sends to the Russians. Russia would make a very serious mistake confusing NATO restraint with NATO weakness. Russia would be mad to take the risk that NATO has lost its ability to deter, although I am sure that some idiots in Russia think that.
 
Even though I understand the feeling for the ones that have been insulted personally, I don't think we should be saying "hah, you predicted X would happen and it didn't happen, therefore you are a liar/fascist/sheep/whatever". There's a propaganda war coming along with the actual war. We're not experts. We've all been fed crap from leaders and media at some point. Most of us are trying to make the best analysis with the (biased or unbiased) info that we get in London, Munich, Santiago, Moscow or Saint Petersburg. My understanding so far is:

-Russia's plan A (quick invasion) and B (long siege) on Kyiv failed. Plan C's success (get the valuable land and coastline and park the bus) is yet to see, but it looks like a stalemate from now. "Ukraine/Russia will win" chants look premature.

-Just as US/EU economic sanctions have failed to make a short term impact in the war or in Putin, it's unlikely that the impact the EU gets in oil/gas shortage and prices will be significant enough for them to change course. A part of Europe understand that they are in an existential war (Lithuannia crowdfunding an attack drone says it all), most of the rest sees it as a war on their institutions and way of living.

-Time is not in Russia's side for two reasons: they would eventually feel the heat of economic/trade war before the EU, and money/resources get renewed faster on the other side. Therefore they need a lot of resolve to try and end this soon, and that's why a lot of their messaging has been about this war being an existential threat for Russia (spoiler: it's not).

-Considering all of the above and adding that this war IS an existential threat for Ukraine and therefore they're not gonna be easily swayed to negotiate just for economic pressure, Russia's only chance would be to esentially kill the last man standing before their forces or resolve collapses. Ukraine knows that and is trying to fight in a way that minimizes casualties, even when it sometimes costs land. Therefore, attrition war.

PS: Fence sitters tend to be the short term winners in most wars, but that doesn't mean they'll win long term (Austria-Hungary or Spain are good examples of that). Even China won't be particularly happy with the current situation, considering their plans on Taiwan.
 
Krakenzero said:
-Time is not in Russia's side for two reasons: they would eventually feel the heat of economic/trade war before the EU, and money/resources get renewed faster on the other side. Therefore they need a lot of resolve to try and end this soon, and that's why a lot of their messaging has been about this war being an existential threat for Russia (spoiler: it's not).
Click to expand...

This is precisely why Putin can't win this. Attempting to "end it soon" wouldn't do that because the Ukrainians won't stop fighting until the Russians have been fully expelled from Ukrainian land, so Putin can't claim a few more towns in Donbas (in addition to decimated Mariupol) and then abruptly call for a peace deal, because the Ukrainians won't stop fighting as long as Russians are in Ukraine - especially given that they have a seemingly endless supply of weapons from the west. That would therefore not be an "out" for Putin. On the other hand, he doesn't have the resources to take all of Ukraine either, so he is now in a lose/lose scenario that will only exacerbate as sanctions continue to act like battery acid on domestic Russian life.
 
Simbo said:
Always confuses me that this guy is so happy to confirm Russian defeats and losses.



Russia has thrown everything at this city... but don't worry, Putin will still win the war :lol:
Click to expand...


He's the hero of the original Donbas campaign, so its likely he's broadcasting Russian shortcomings this time around as a way to sound the alarm to Russian officials that they need to improve or else face the consequences of losing.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to add that IMO the news or gossips about Putin's health (or lack of) could be in a separate thread as it's getting more and more evident that this is not only Putin's war and that his eventual "retire" doesn't necessarily ends it.
 
The interesting bit here is there are apparently significant swaths of land in southern Ukraine were neither side are in control (probably because there's nothing there).

 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I think you are wrong and you sound a bit scared to me which is understandable given what is predicted to be coming.

1,
If the build up of forces had lead to a capitulation to his demands then Putin would have won. If the initial advance had gone to plan and brutal repression of Ukraine had destroyed any insurrection then Putin would have won. Neither of those things happened so now there are only types of losses from this point forward. In the sense that Russia will never be better off or safer because of this invasion.

2,
Its been just over 100 days. So the idea its long past time Europe starts to think about dealing with Russia is nonsense. The war has only just begun. Russia had first actor advantage, had put Ukraine in the mobilization trap and had 10 months preparation advantage by the end of February. Strategically the number of good options and directions of attack played against Ukraine as it didn't know where the attack would be coming from.

These advantages are running down or gone.

I think the only way left for Russia to force what it wants on Ukraine is full mobilization in Russia and Putin would have already done that if he calculated it as best for him.

3,
At the start of this thread I posted about where would Putin and Russia be if this war became a long one, I don't think he survives. There were very few people who thought Ukraine would survive six months. Wars often ebb and flow and you never know the breaking point until it is reached and often then only in hindsight.

If the Ukrainians are smart they wait until they have everything in place. The better AA systems ready with well trained operators and the new heavy artillery in place with likewise fully trained personnel. They might only get one shot at retaking their country but as long as they are willing to try the west will support them although there will always be dissent on the subject that's democracy for you.


Lastly,

Overenthusiasm on the predictions of the timing of Russia's defeat is understandable. The suffering is awful to watch and everyone wants it over with. The people who predicted this war thought six months at least before the cracks in Russian strategy and its economy become undeniable.
Click to expand...

If I were "scared" I would simply take my family and move to my native England, it would be very easy for me to do that.

As for your post, you may well be correct but I obviously don't think so. Again, look at how the messaging from the West has been shifting over the last month. Back in March and April everyone was gung-ho for supporting Ukraine "for as long as it takes". In my opinion this was driven by the belief that Russia's war was being so ineptly carried out that Putin would be suffocated into a quick defeat ("there'll be nothing left of the Russian economy by June!"). But that is not going to happen. Back in March the New York Times was one of the biggest proponents of the idea that America should give all the money and weapons Ukraine needs in order to 'win'. Fast forward a couple of months and now we're getting this, from the editorial board:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html

In addition, more and more articles on the American news sites are starting to mention "the midterms" when writing about America's financial support of the war, as in "Biden needs to be wary of the midterms". Why? If, as Pelosi and Schumer and all the rest keep saying, "America will stand with our Ukrainian friends until victory is won" (sound familiar Afghanis?) then why do the midterms matter? We know the answer of course. America's debt is currently about 130% of GDP, prices are through the roof, gas prices have doubled, Biden has countless problems back in America, his ratings are subterranean and come November it is going to be increasingly difficult to explain to Americans why he's continuing to send billions of dollars to Ukraine. Especially when more people will be realising that this war has nothing to do with "defending Ukrainian democracy" or whatever other fatuous nonsense they've been saying about the reasons for this invasion. 'Zelenskiy' is saying he won't make any compromises and he won't even start negotiations until the Russian army has withdrawn to its pre-February 24th position. That is never going to happen. Therefore, unless the Biden Admin want to be exposed as liars, it means they're going to have to fund Ukraine's war indefinitely. And as I've suggested, all those who are hoping the printing press will continue to just print more money to pay for it all are going to be sorely disappointed. With everyone from the governor of the Bank of England...

https://www.ft.com/content/0a8f0465-12ed-412b-94cb-571f9fb6f0d4

...to the CEO of JPMorgan Chase...

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/01/jam...ricane-caused-by-the-fed-and-ukraine-war.html

...saying financial armageddon is on the way, and the Biden Admin making the blunder of calling it all a "Putin price hike" (well then why are you looking to extend it rather than press Zelenskiy to sue for peace?), continuing to fund Ukraine's war will be risky at best, political suicide at worst. Americans don't care about "Ukrainian freedom". They simply don't. The Americans (including in this thread) who are demanding Ukraine fight on to the last Ukrainian soldier and, ideally, the last European euro are doing so because this war is riveting entertainment for them, and because - an American trait - they don't believe that the bill will ever come. "Printing press go buuuuurrrrrr", right? Wrong. Not this time.

Put bluntly, everyone was adamant back in March that the West must bankroll Ukraine's push for total victory because it was believed that the sanctions would quickly cripple Putin's war machine. They haven't, and they won't. And that's why France and Germany have been trying to push 'Zelenskiy' to sue for peace, and why in the last few days even America has said they're going to consider Italy's 4-step proposal for a peaceful settlement (a month ago they dismissed any such talk out of hand). Without NATO boots on the ground (something Ukraine has been desperately trying to make happen), there is no realistic scenario where the Ukrainians win, and they will have to cede territory. Literally everyone in politics knows this, they're just afraid to say it because they see what happens to people (Kissinger for example) who do, they get the facile "Neville Chamberlain and Hitler!" nonsense.

Furthermore (to sum up my main point), an economic collapse is coming, but for Ukraine, not Russia. Ukraine lived on its heavy industry, its grain exports, and the transit fees for Russian oil and gas. All have now gone and Zelenskiy needs something like 10 billion dollars A MONTH only to keep his economy afloat, without even considering the war costs (sidebar - how much money are the billionaire Ukrainian oligarchs sending to Ukraine from their Swiss chateaus? The British taxpayers sent 300 million last month, how much did Zelenskiy's boss Kolomoiyskiy send?). Russia can still export its resources to the non-Western world whereas Ukraine is now wholly reliant on its new 'sponsor' from across the pond, and as many countries have experienced, the US is a very capricious 'sponsor'.

I'll post this link from today, but I'll add the acknowledgement that The Hill is not exactly first rate journalism (still a sounder source than Glaston's psychic friend though). Nevertheless I think it raises points that are worth considering:

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...-win-a-public-relations-war-against-the-west/


Simultaneously, the heretofore skimpy and universally negative reporting of Putin’s intentions has begun to morph into a dawning perception that the Russian leader’s strategy of conquering a land bridge to Crimea and gaining a chokehold on the entire Ukrainian economy, via total control of the Black Sea coastline, is not quite as inept as previously reported.

Another element of the conventional wisdom now crumbling is the idea that the crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. and European Union nations would soon bring the Russian economy to its knees. Instead, there is evidence that the opposite may be occurring, with sanctions doing more damage to Western economies than to Russia’s. Far from being the “rubble” predicted by President Biden, the ruble hit a two-year high in May and Russian energy and agricultural exports were producing record high revenues, in large part because Europe and much of the rest of the world can’t do without them.

Related to these phenomena is the utter unreality of the war’s foundational myth — namely that the United States has rallied almost the entire world against a nearly totally isolated Russia. In truth, of the world’s 195 countries only 65 have agreed to join the American sanctions regime — meaning that 130 have refused, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, most of Asia, Africa and Latin America, countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world’s population.

Consider also that the nations the U.S. currently targets with sanctions represent a powerful bloc strongly opposing what they regard as America’s economic bullying. A striking example of the rejection of U.S. assumptions of dominance was a recent meeting of the world’s leading financial nations — the G-20 Summit — when the U.S. delegation walked out on a speech by a Russian delegate and only three of the other 19 delegations followed suit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.