NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 17 2022 01:23 KwarK wrote: Crimea is going to be a sticking point for sure. There’s no way Putin can back down on it now, they just built a giant bridge to connect it to the rest of Russia.
Resource rights in the black sea and water to Crimea are both going to be hard to reconcile as well. Putin can't spend the money to maintain the region after this war but Russia can't also risk losing all of it's leverage over selling natural gas to Europe without it.
This invasion has shown very clearly that we probably shouldn't be depending on Russian gas quite as much as we currently do. I think it has opened quite a few eyes, and i would be very surprised if we were still dependent on Russian gas in 10 years.
On March 17 2022 01:24 Sent. wrote: I hope Ukraine isn't going to accept any limits on its armed forces. It's an absurd thing to do while sharing a border with Russia.
Nothing in that "source" says that Ukraine can't join the EU and and it's defense forces.
That's a process that would take many many years. The EU ascension track is along, and for good reason. Plenty of time for Putin to throw some more generals out the window, restructure the military, yet again, and have another crack before they would be in.
Maybe they can 'cheat' by signing Ukraine on to the mutual defence treaty without EU membership? I don't know how that works, its not required because Finland is a part of it.
It would place Ukraine kind of but not really into NATO. But then, is the EU keen on having a Ukraine war 2.0 hanging above it like a sword of Damocles? And can Putin sell a "they are not part of NATO, but have a defensive pacts with most of NATO anyway" at home?
Isn't he an Oligarch himself and even has homes and boats all around the world? Makes me wonder what the domestic situation is for his inner circle for him to make this speech.
Putin is going full Hitler/Stalin. Talks about purging the nation from traitors.
Wow, assuming that translation is correct, that is indeed classical fascist playbook.
It makes sense, too. The fascist needs to be strong and powerful, to justify his ideology. He needs to be able to push through his view against any opposition.
When he fails to do so, the only way he can explain it without losing face is through treason. If he just fails against normal opposition, that means that he is not as strong as he claims, which completely delegitimizes all of his claims to power. Because he can not admit that another may be stronger then him.
The only explanation that he can publicly admit to is that the enemy is dishonorable and treacherous. It also allows him to purge his interior opposition at the same time, which is always nice for fascists.
On March 17 2022 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Isn't he an Oligarch himself and even has homes and boats all around the world? Makes me wonder what the domestic situation is for his inner circle for him to make this speech.
He is the richest of them all. Here's a video about a palace he built for himself (there are English subtitles):
@Simberto
It is correct. I study Russian. Maybe some native speaker can confirm it.
Yeah, that’s fascist as fuck. His policy is the nation’s policy. Opposition to his policy is an attack on the spiritual idea of the nation. Any who do not support him are enemies of the nation and must be uprooted and destroyed.
Here is PBS Frontline documentary on Putin and his rise to power to 2015(?). Not too sure if it will play for people in Europe, hopefully it does. It is very good.
On March 17 2022 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Isn't he an Oligarch himself and even has homes and boats all around the world? Makes me wonder what the domestic situation is for his inner circle for him to make this speech.
He is the richest of them all. Here's a video about a palace he built for himself:
In a way this might be a good thing right? Putin going all stir pot paranoid routing out traitors increases the chance someone close to him puts a bullet in him to save themselves, which at this point is probably the easiest short term solution.
On March 17 2022 04:07 Gorsameth wrote: In a way this might be a good thing right? Putin going all stir pot paranoid routing out traitors increases the chance someone close to him puts a bullet in him to save themselves, which at this point is probably the easiest short term solution.
You mean like it happened with all the other dictators with similar tendencies during the last century? When was actually the last time this happened to someone who had enough time to consolidate power (so we are not talking about the typical african dictator, who just gets couped every 3 years...)
Seriously, this idea should just be entirely abandoned, it is not gonna happen. And there will also not be a great Russian revolution anytime soon to end the war. It really ruins any western conversation about how the way forward has to look like, when half the time someone is talking about "maybe the problem will solve itself from the inside".
We should assume Putin and his regime is there to stay. And then we face the dilemma, that suddenly there is either a new equilibrium required, as the old one is entirely and unreversibly shattered. Or you have to go all the way to the end. And neither option is looking exactly great. But shying away from those hard decisions by just dreaming about solutions that ain't gonna happen is of no help either.
On March 17 2022 04:07 Gorsameth wrote: In a way this might be a good thing right? Putin going all stir pot paranoid routing out traitors increases the chance someone close to him puts a bullet in him to save themselves, which at this point is probably the easiest short term solution.
You mean like it happened with all the other dictators with similar tendencies during the last century? When was actually the last time this happened to someone who had enough time to consolidate power (so we are not talking about the typical african dictator, who just gets couped every 3 years...)
Seriously, this idea should just be entirely abandoned, it is not gonna happen. And there will also not be a great Russian revolution anytime soon to end the war. It really ruins any western conversation about how the way forward has to look like, when half the time someone is talking about "maybe the problem will solve itself from the inside".
We should assume Putin and his regime is there to stay. And then we face the dilemma, that suddenly there is either a new equilibrium required, as the old one is entirely and unreversibly shattered. Or you have to go all the way to the end. And neither option is looking exactly great. But shying away from those hard decisions by just dreaming about solutions that ain't gonna happen is of no help either.
You don't have to act like it's super far-fetched either. Here's a list of 42 assassination attempts on Hitler: + Show Spoiler +
I don't think that speech is full fascist, but the 'purification' one is the most concerning one. I identify several points from that speech: 1. Nationalism - typical Russian narrative goes as follows: reject western liberal values, favour marriage between man and woman, don't betray those values for a little western luxury, etc. Faith in Russian Orthodox church. This has been typical Russian propaganda since at least the Istanbul convention. I've heard it for years and some people here in Bulgaria use "gender" (literal use, no translation) as a synonym of "moron" / "odd person" almost. Mostly old generation, pro-Russia people. 2. Imaginary enemy to keep Russians rallied around Putin and not to oust him. West is responsible for this, west is responsible for that, Ukraine has nazis and blah-blah of that type. 3. The fascist part, talking about purification.
All of these are radical, but #3 is more concerning of them all if he indeed goes full Stalin. Stalin killed a lot of his own people (Russians) even though he was actually Georgian and not Russian, but that's beside the point. So, #1 and #2 aren't really surprising to me if you've had an ear out for Russian propaganda during the last few years. I suppose it was their strategy to get people onboard after things got escalated after Crimea, but that's just my guess.
On March 17 2022 00:37 RvB wrote: Senior NATO officials now think it's likely that Russia will never achieve their objectives. Not very surprising anymore all things considered but quite a turnaround from expectations at the start of the war
Nato senior military officials say President Putin has clearly not achieved his military goals in Ukraine so far and "probably will not at the end of the day".
But they added that Russian forces still had the capacity to do "a lot of damage".
The defence officials said that while Russian forces had made gains in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, they had still failed to encircle Kyiv - which they said Russia had expected to do in a matter of days.
An expected Russian amphibious assault in the south near Odessa had also, so far, failed to materialise.
The Nato officials believe that Russia's original military plan had included taking all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast - right up to Moldova.
They assessed that Russia's invasion force was suffering from a lack of fuel and food as well as suffering losses. They said that President Putin was already looking for reinforcements.
One official said it was "highly likely" that would involve bringing in foreign fighters from Syria and private military contractors - such as the Wagner group - to Ukraine.
Another official added that Russia's military reserves "were not a secret weapon". He said that calling on reserve forces was "scratching the bottom of the barrel".
Nato officials say that allies and member states are continuing to send weapons to Ukraine. They said that included old Soviet weaponry, which Ukrainian forces would have been trained to use, as well as Western supplied anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
If Ukraine is 'winning' they are probably not willing to make to many territorial concessions (aka give up Crimea, and the 2 'peoples republics'. Putin is unlikely to want to just admit defeat and go home with nothing. Even a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO feels very much like him losing.
Russia likely won't be able to afford to just keep this going indefinitely, and with Western aid Ukraine can likely keep up the fight a lot longer.
So is the world just waiting for Putin to throw in the towel and go home dragging along the tatters of Russia's once status as a major power?
Not seeing a way out really is one of the most depressing aspects of the conflict. Assuming, like you say, that Ukraine "wins" (let's define that as a military stalemate with some portions of eastern Ukraine taken), perhaps Putin declares "victory" in liberating the Don republics, then enters their trenches for some long years while waiting for Ukrainian popular opinion to shift and accept the status of the 'peoples republics'?
I would assume the next logical step for Russia is chemical warfare. The previous talks about US chemical laboratories in Ukraine seem a setup for this. They have also encircled cities, thus have easy targets where they likely kill 5 civilians per military people dying from it. It has been up as a likely option for over a week now.
On March 17 2022 01:24 Sent. wrote: I hope Ukraine isn't going to accept any limits on its armed forces. It's an absurd thing to do while sharing a border with Russia.
Nothing in that "source" says that Ukraine can't join the EU and and it's defense forces.
That's a process that would take many many years. The EU ascension track is along, and for good reason. Plenty of time for Putin to throw some more generals out the window, restructure the military, yet again, and have another crack before they would be in.
Maybe they can 'cheat' by signing Ukraine on to the mutual defence treaty without EU membership? I don't know how that works, its not required because Finland is a part of it.
It would place Ukraine kind of but not really into NATO. But then, is the EU keen on having a Ukraine war 2.0 hanging above it like a sword of Damocles? And can Putin sell a "they are not part of NATO, but have a defensive pacts with most of NATO anyway" at home?
Finland is in the EU, are you speaking about a NATO treaty here? Finland isn't covered by NATO article 5, but there are other bilateral treaties in place including with NATO countries.
On March 17 2022 00:37 RvB wrote: Senior NATO officials now think it's likely that Russia will never achieve their objectives. Not very surprising anymore all things considered but quite a turnaround from expectations at the start of the war
Nato senior military officials say President Putin has clearly not achieved his military goals in Ukraine so far and "probably will not at the end of the day".
But they added that Russian forces still had the capacity to do "a lot of damage".
The defence officials said that while Russian forces had made gains in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, they had still failed to encircle Kyiv - which they said Russia had expected to do in a matter of days.
An expected Russian amphibious assault in the south near Odessa had also, so far, failed to materialise.
The Nato officials believe that Russia's original military plan had included taking all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast - right up to Moldova.
They assessed that Russia's invasion force was suffering from a lack of fuel and food as well as suffering losses. They said that President Putin was already looking for reinforcements.
One official said it was "highly likely" that would involve bringing in foreign fighters from Syria and private military contractors - such as the Wagner group - to Ukraine.
Another official added that Russia's military reserves "were not a secret weapon". He said that calling on reserve forces was "scratching the bottom of the barrel".
Nato officials say that allies and member states are continuing to send weapons to Ukraine. They said that included old Soviet weaponry, which Ukrainian forces would have been trained to use, as well as Western supplied anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
If Ukraine is 'winning' they are probably not willing to make to many territorial concessions (aka give up Crimea, and the 2 'peoples republics'. Putin is unlikely to want to just admit defeat and go home with nothing. Even a guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO feels very much like him losing.
Russia likely won't be able to afford to just keep this going indefinitely, and with Western aid Ukraine can likely keep up the fight a lot longer.
So is the world just waiting for Putin to throw in the towel and go home dragging along the tatters of Russia's once status as a major power?
Not seeing a way out really is one of the most depressing aspects of the conflict. Assuming, like you say, that Ukraine "wins" (let's define that as a military stalemate with some portions of eastern Ukraine taken), perhaps Putin declares "victory" in liberating the Don republics, then enters their trenches for some long years while waiting for Ukrainian popular opinion to shift and accept the status of the 'peoples republics'?
I would assume the next logical step for Russia is chemical warfare. The previous talks about US chemical laboratories in Ukraine seem a setup for this. They have also encircled cities, thus have easy targets where they likely kill 5 civilians per military people dying from it. It has been up as a likely option for over a week now.
They already bomb civilian locations regularly, so it sadly isn't much of a stretch.
I think it's a huge stretch. There's no reason for them to use chemical weapons. Even brainwashed Putin supporters wouldn't believe there's nothing wrong with using chemical weapons in urban areas. They'd rather see him nuke some Ukrainian city and give Zelensky an ultimatum to surrender in 3 days or Kyiv is next.
The stories about American labs are for Western flat earthers and other idiots who do Kremlin's internet propaganda work for free.
On March 17 2022 01:24 Sent. wrote: I hope Ukraine isn't going to accept any limits on its armed forces. It's an absurd thing to do while sharing a border with Russia.
Nothing in that "source" says that Ukraine can't join the EU and and it's defense forces.
That's a process that would take many many years. The EU ascension track is along, and for good reason. Plenty of time for Putin to throw some more generals out the window, restructure the military, yet again, and have another crack before they would be in.
Maybe they can 'cheat' by signing Ukraine on to the mutual defence treaty without EU membership? I don't know how that works, its not required because Finland is a part of it.
It would place Ukraine kind of but not really into NATO. But then, is the EU keen on having a Ukraine war 2.0 hanging above it like a sword of Damocles? And can Putin sell a "they are not part of NATO, but have a defensive pacts with most of NATO anyway" at home?
Finland is in the EU, are you speaking about a NATO treaty here? Finland isn't covered by NATO article 5, but there are other bilateral treaties in place including with NATO countries.
Nobody remembers that but there's a similar article in the Lisbon treaty. No reason to take it too seriously now but it's one of the things the "ever closer union" is supposed to built in the future.
On March 17 2022 01:24 Sent. wrote: I hope Ukraine isn't going to accept any limits on its armed forces. It's an absurd thing to do while sharing a border with Russia.
Nothing in that "source" says that Ukraine can't join the EU and and it's defense forces.
That's a process that would take many many years. The EU ascension track is along, and for good reason. Plenty of time for Putin to throw some more generals out the window, restructure the military, yet again, and have another crack before they would be in.
Maybe they can 'cheat' by signing Ukraine on to the mutual defence treaty without EU membership? I don't know how that works, its not required because Finland is a part of it.
It would place Ukraine kind of but not really into NATO. But then, is the EU keen on having a Ukraine war 2.0 hanging above it like a sword of Damocles? And can Putin sell a "they are not part of NATO, but have a defensive pacts with most of NATO anyway" at home?
Finland is in the EU, are you speaking about a NATO treaty here? Finland isn't covered by NATO article 5, but there are other bilateral treaties in place including with NATO countries.
No I was being an idiot and confusing Norway being outside the EU with Finland.
Finland is indeed not covered by NATO but covered by the EU mutual defense agreement. Which leaves my original point, could Ukraine be added to the EU mutual defensive in a situation where they agree to stay out of NATO without actually being given EU membership, because that process takes a long time.
On March 17 2022 05:50 mahrgell wrote: Or the lesson could be that even if you get a ton of people to attempt it, chances of success are extremely slim...p
Or that time travelers have been interfering because Hitler staying alive to the end was better than the alternative for the timeline. The repeated low probability failures suggest an external factor interfering.
On March 16 2022 23:51 KwarK wrote: *snip In a lot of western countries there are a lot of military planners who have devoted a lot of time and energy to working with the Ukrainian military so that they have the tools they need today. Probably more time and energy than the Russians put in planning their side of the war. The more that I learn about the planning and resources available to each side the more I see a Ukrainian victory as likely. It wasn’t widely publicized before this conflict for obvious reasons but the Ukrainian military has in many ways been rebuilt to wield a western sword that was custom made to kill Russians.
Yes, Canadian instructors were also there- Operation UNIFIER and as I understand it, they and the other NATO instructors were emphasizing mission command vs top-down command structures.
In place of the top-down style of leadership inherited from Soviet days, the Canadians and other NATO instructors tried to instill the idea of giving small-unit commanders the autonomy to make decisions on the fly.
It was a cultural transformation, but seems to be paying off in spades as the out-gunned Ukrainian forces perform remarkably well against a Russian onslaught, says one of those teachers from Canada.
The attacks that have helped stall a huge Russian convoy north of Kyiv, for instance, have been made possible partly by small-unit leaders taking the initiative to craft their own ambushes, says Capt. Hugh Purdon.
“That all comes down to a platoon or section commander saying ‘We’re going to use the Javelin (anti-tank weapon) here and then we’re going to pull back and use the Javelin here,’” he said. “You multiply that thousands of times and all of a sudden you have a viable defence.”
“That is probably the biggest shock the (Russian) occupiers of Ukraine are seeing right now,” said Purdon. “You don’t have the level of success you are seeing … if you haven’t developed that (leadership style).”
So although smaller, you are seeing a far more efficient defensive force not only on spending priorities but also at the operational level. With mission command, the Ukrainians would be far more flexible, being able to adapt on the fly. With all these trainers from NATO, because NATO countries have quite a bit of experience in modern warfare, the Ukrainians would be getting pretty up to date information on how to fight a modern warfare. Whereas was the last real war Russia was in was Afghanistan in the early 80's?
Whether Ukraine wins in the end, I do not know, but they are putting up a hell of a fight.
EPT
