- Nov 11, 2009
- 12,267
It was this, Putins first foreign visit in 2000 to see Blair with Gordon Ramsey there, unfortunately without any poison.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
I've just watched the second episode. It's even more powerful.
It includes the video Zelensky made with his close team, on the street in Kyiv on the night of the invasion. He had already said to his team, 'you all have families, I won't judge you, leave if you want'. But they didn't. His expression at the end of the clip spoke volumes. He knew he - and they - would die.
That phenomenal courage he and his team showed that night, quite probably saved Ukraine. He knew that if he fled, Ukraine would fall. But he didn't flee.
And Ukraine didn't fall.
Today, two and a half years later, the war has descended into an existential conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
My money's on Ukraine.
While I agree with several of your points, I don't think the current situation suits him at all. Before the war he could command respect on the world stage, and travel around the med on a fancy yacht if he wished. He's now a worldwide pariah who has to holiday in China, Iran and North Korea.
Putin is only 71 and unlikely to die of natural causes for a very long time. I can't see the war continuing for another 20 years.
Interesting analysis on this and the other thread.
Presumably our Intelligence, and that of the US and others are constantly running simulations and predictions.
And yet there seems to be no obvious....strategy or.....even policy (with Trump likely to pull support for Ukraine, for example, indicting that policy is a moveable feast).
And also.....there are war-ending weapons available to Putin, with the same available to 'the west' if we want to retaliate.....
I am reminded of Orwell's 1984, where there was always a war in a far off land, a war with no purpose other than to resist an ill-defined aggressor, a war with no end, with only ever small gains (never any losses) and a constant feed of patriotic bullshit to the inhabitants of Oceana (and Eastasia and Eurasia too, one assumes).
This seems to me how it is likely to be in Russia. Most people support in Russia the great resistance. The minority that don't soon pay a visit to room 101.
Meanwhile the west seems unsure how to engage. It has almost, as a knee-jerk, subscribed to a proxy war, albeit we have no skin in the game, and even less of an agenda than Russia. It is as if the west doesn't know what it is doing. And in any case the west is vulnerable to a split (if Trump wins again). And as a split, this is hardly fuelling panic or outrage here in Blighty. We look at the US election and shake our heads sadly - but nothing more.
All of this suggests to me that Putin isn't interested in 'victory'. He simply wants to perpetuate the conflict, presumably to direct the light away from what really preoccupies him back home. Which is, I suspect, to enrich himself and his acolytes, while gorging on steroids, cocaine and hookers.
Presumably our Intelligence, and that of the US and others are constantly running simulations and predictions.
And yet there seems to be no obvious....strategy or.....even policy (with Trump likely to pull support for Ukraine, for example, indicting that policy is a moveable feast).
And also.....there are war-ending weapons available to Putin, with the same available to 'the west' if we want to retaliate.....
I am reminded of Orwell's 1984, where there was always a war in a far off land, a war with no purpose other than to resist an ill-defined aggressor, a war with no end, with only ever small gains (never any losses) and a constant feed of patriotic bullshit to the inhabitants of Oceana (and Eastasia and Eurasia too, one assumes).
This seems to me how it is likely to be in Russia. Most people support in Russia the great resistance. The minority that don't soon pay a visit to room 101.
Meanwhile the west seems unsure how to engage. It has almost, as a knee-jerk, subscribed to a proxy war, albeit we have no skin in the game, and even less of an agenda than Russia. It is as if the west doesn't know what it is doing. And in any case the west is vulnerable to a split (if Trump wins again). And as a split, this is hardly fuelling panic or outrage here in Blighty. We look at the US election and shake our heads sadly - but nothing more.
All of this suggests to me that Putin isn't interested in 'victory'. He simply wants to perpetuate the conflict, presumably to direct the light away from what really preoccupies him back home. Which is, I suspect, to enrich himself and his acolytes, while gorging on steroids, cocaine and hookers.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
There are no silly questions.
If Zelensky had been assassinated early in the war, I suspect the West would have just accepted it, and Russia would have quickly occupied the whole of Ukraine. Today, we know much more about Russia and its military, so those things wouldn't apply.
The assassination of Putin is more problematic. There are many scenarios which could evolve. But one resonates with me. It suggests that the reason Putin has not been assassinated by western agents or the Ukrainians, is that the West see him as unlikely to go nuclear. Yes, really ! Better the devil you know etc. In the end, who knows?
- Nov 15, 2006
- 4,246
Second point is a good one, there appear to be a few close to Putin who are even more deranged
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
Yes, that is the received wisdom, but it's only a school of thought.Second point is a good one, there appear to be a few close to Putin who are even more deranged
Did you watch the second episode of the Zelensky story? It featured the now famous sequence in a grand room in the Kremlin, where all the ministers are sat down in front of Putin at his desk, which is far away from them. It was more than a bit control freakish. He asked them one by one, if they agreed to the special military operation.
They were all terrified of him, so of course they all agreed, otherwise they would have been 'retired'. Since then, they have been competing to toe the line and be seen to be the most belligerent. They all want to please the teacher, but if he is no longer the teacher, would they be as belligerent? One day, we will find out.
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
Pretty certain the West wouldn’t take out Putin. The risks far outweigh the gains. Saying that, I’m also pretty certain any attempt would have to come from inside Russia itself.
papachris
Well-known member
Just to keep you up to date. This is in our Estonian news today
news.err.ee
Russian drone that entered from Belarus crashes in Latvia
A Russian drone crashed in the Rezekne region of Latvia after entering Latvian airspace via Belarus, the Latvian Ministry of Defense reported. According to preliminary assessments, the drone's presence in Latvia appears to have been accidental.
news.err.ee
ChickenBaltiPie
Well-known member
- Jan 3, 2014
- 937
Better the devil you know, seems more fitting than ever re Putin. Until such time as the West can CONFIDENTLY install a more passive/moderate ‘dictator’ in his place. Although, worth noting of course, that once upon a time, that’s exactly what we thought he was.
newhaven seagull 85
SELDOM IN NEWHAVEN
- Dec 3, 2006
- 965
no to WW3
Any assassination of Putin, would only come from within Russia and would have to be supported by the Military. Who would blame the West/Ukraine for there own internal media propaganda, and would not immediately end the war in Ukraine.
What happens after that depends on How the West deals with the person/people who come to prominence in Russia.
So long as the west doesn't offer asylum to the assassin
The risk that comes with the death of Putin (for which, incidentally, good riddance) would be what happens in the subsequent power vacuum. There is no obvious successor. The good outcome is something like a military coup, immediate cessation of hostilities and movement toward re-establishment of democracy. The really, really bad outcome is an internal civil war in an inherently unstable, nuclear armed state. That could have terrible outcomes for everyone.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
- Nov 11, 2009
- 12,267
You're right that there is no coherent strategy of Ukraine victory.... one gets impression US are trying to force a stalemate and negotiated end.
But Putin doesn't think the same way and sees our appeasing as a green light. He will only stop when he can't move further and we give him the space.
Our "preventing escalation" causes him to escalate into the space our weakness allows him. It will only end when he's forcibly stopped.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,081
'They are victims of their own propaganda. I found the formula of how the Russian really works. First he writes some crazy theory. Then they put this on TV. Then they watch their own TV and start to believe it. It's like a cycle. It's like it's real. When we were talking to these people, they really believed that we were full of Nazis, killing people on the street. There are 150 million people in this country. They are watching the TV and they are believing this thing.'
- David Arakhamia, Leader of Zelensky's ruling party, The Zelensky Story, episode 3.
Do you understand the significance? The Russians who came to negotiate the peace, actually believed the propaganda.
Somehow, somewhen, we have to turn that around. Win the peace. Otherwise Russia, and its leaders, will lick their wounds, regroup, re-arm, re-organise, and next time they may find a way to conquer Ukraine.
How then, do we reverse a century of being duped by your leaders? I once read, that it is easier to be duped, than to convince someone that they've been duped?
Open to suggestions.
- David Arakhamia, Leader of Zelensky's ruling party, The Zelensky Story, episode 3.
Do you understand the significance? The Russians who came to negotiate the peace, actually believed the propaganda.
Somehow, somewhen, we have to turn that around. Win the peace. Otherwise Russia, and its leaders, will lick their wounds, regroup, re-arm, re-organise, and next time they may find a way to conquer Ukraine.
How then, do we reverse a century of being duped by your leaders? I once read, that it is easier to be duped, than to convince someone that they've been duped?
Open to suggestions.
Well put.
Yes, it's as if the US would relish negotiating with a damaged/weakened Russia, but they don't want Russia SO damaged that negotiations may be hard to control or finesse by the US.
I even struggle to put this stuff into words clearly!