[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Nobby]

Don’t agree. Reserves? What reserves? Why would it need them as the producer of the “reserves” in the first place. They should control inflation by taxation and other fiscal measures, also by issuing national savings to take money out of the economy which appears to be overheating, but definitely not by high interest rates which actually have an inflationary effect despite the monetarist

 

[Eric the meek]

YouTube - start with Joe Blogs, Times Radio, Business Basics, The Military Show.

TV and radio news is nothing much more than a summary of what is going on. If you really what to find out the story you need to spend 20-30 mins watching these guys.

Soldiers from North Korea suddenly started appearing on the frontline. The reasons why were being discussed weeks before the BBC carried the story. The reason is Russia hasn't got enough manpower to maintain economic output AND fight the war. This is a big deal, especially if these North Koreans get wiped out quickly.

Thanks for taking the trouble to do that.

This is a long thread, so I wouldn't expect you to know this, but all the Youtubers you mention feature on here. Business Basics less so. For geopolitical analysis, Peter Zeihan and Paul Warburg. Jake Broe for comprehensive round-ups.

On Twitter, Tendar (German), Nexta (Belarusian Pro Ukraine), Gerashchenko (well connected Ukrainian) are my go to accounts. There are many others, mainly Ukrainian, who I read occasionally.

For long interviews, Times Radio and the Silicon curtain.

BBC can be good for after-the-event analysis. There are pros and cons to having the BBC Verify team to check the validity of their output.

I avoid all Indian sources.

One final point. A way to find out what is going on in Putin"s head, is to watch Russian state TV. The underlying message can be a goldmine of information Usual caveats of course.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Musk getting involved

 

[The Clamp]

Musk getting involved

Very heavily edited. Lots of tiny glitches.

Still clearly bollocks.

 

[Eric the meek]

John Lough of Chatham House, talking to Jonathan Fink of Silicon Curtain.

Lough was asked by the MOD to write a paper on what the end of the war would look like.

TLDR (it's a 37 minute watch but it's worth it - he is the real deal):

There are four possible outcomes:

1. A long war.
2. A 'bad peace', forced upon Ukraine.
3. A Ukraine win.
4. A Ukraine defeat.

Towards the end, he says he's coming round to the idea of British and French troops (and no US troops) fighting in Ukraine.

 

[The Clamp]

John Lough of Chatham House, talking to Jonathan Fink of Silicon Curtain.

Lough was asked by the MOD to write a paper on what the end of the war would look like.

TLDR (it's a 37 minute watch but it's worth it - he is the real deal):

There are four possible outcomes:

1. A long war.
2. A 'bad peace', forced upon Ukraine.
3. A Ukraine win.
4. A Ukraine defeat.

Towards the end, he says he's coming round to the idea of British and French troops (and no US troops) fighting in Ukraine.

Number 1 is not an end.

Number 2 is not an end.

3 and 4 are probably not an end either.

It will end in one way, in my opinion. Western troops on the ground. Putin needs exterminating, along with his regime. Russia needs to be under western control until it learns to behave itself.

 

[Eric the meek]

Number 1 is not an end.

Number 2 is not an end.

3 and 4 are probably not an end either.

It will end in one way, in my opinion. Western troops on the ground. Putin needs exterminating, along with his regime. Russia needs to be under western control until it learns to behave itself.

Correction:

Outcome 2 is a frozen conflict.

Lough subsequently outlines another possible outcome which he thinks is most likely - a negotiated settlement, which the Ukrainians refer to as a 'bad peace'.

 

[The Clamp]

Correction:

Outcome 2 is a frozen conflict.

Lough subsequently outlines another possible outcome which he thinks is most likely - a negotiated settlement, which the Ukrainians refer to as a 'bad peace'.

Yes, as I said. No.2 is not an end.


Has Zelenskyy not repeatedly said that will never happen?

I’d say that was categorically the least likely of options.

 

[Eric the meek]

Yes, as I said. No.2 is not an end.


Has Zelenskyy not repeatedly said that will never happen?

I’d say that was categorically the least likely of options.

Yes. But Lough also says that any negotiations cannot go over the heads of the Ukrainians.

Don't get hung up the word 'end'. Lough used the word 'outcome'.

 

[raymondo]

John Lough of Chatham House, talking to Jonathan Fink of Silicon Curtain.

Lough was asked by the MOD to write a paper on what the end of the war would look like.

TLDR (it's a 37 minute watch but it's worth it - he is the real deal):

There are four possible outcomes:

1. A long war.
2. A 'bad peace', forced upon Ukraine.
3. A Ukraine win.
4. A Ukraine defeat.

Towards the end, he says he's coming round to the idea of British and French troops (and no US troops) fighting in Ukraine.

Funnily enough, I was probably listening to that as you posted,!
Was indeed worth it - very good. A couple of points stuck in my head,:
1. Be clear that to Putin, a negotiation means negotiating the complete surrender of Ukraine
2. He bashed on a lot that the US should have done more and faster, and, I thought, let Europe off the hook a bit (but maybe I need a second listen ).
Perhaps it was just a tacit acceptance that Europe doesn't/won't do anything without US say so. (Could of course change if Trump cuts loose from Europe).
3. A Ukrainian official said, after a visit to the US, "Ukraine will join NATO when the US leaves".

 

[Eric the meek]

Funnily enough, I was probably listening to that as you posted,!
Was indeed worth it - very good. A couple of points stuck in my head,:
1. Be clear that to Putin, a negotiation means negotiating the complete surrender of Ukraine
2. He bashed on a lot that the US should have done more and faster, and, I thought, let Europe off the hook a bit (but maybe I need a second listen ).
Perhaps it was just a tacit acceptance that Europe doesn't/won't do anything without US say so. (Could of course change if Trump cuts loose from Europe).
3. A Ukrainian official said, after a visit to the US, "Ukraine will join NATO when the US leaves".

That first point jumps off the page at me. How can the peace talks even get off the ground?

 

[raymondo]

That first point jumps off the page at me. How can the peace talks even get off the ground?

Exactly, it's not going to be a fast process with Putin, unless one side capitulates.

 

[Eric the meek]

Exactly, it's not going to be a fast process with Putin, unless one side capitulates.

Therefore as discussed earlier, it gives Ukraine more time to destroy more of Russia, and more time for Russia to undergo an economic collapse. Happy days!

 

[Pavilionaire]

John Lough of Chatham House, talking to Jonathan Fink of Silicon Curtain.

Lough was asked by the MOD to write a paper on what the end of the war would look like.

TLDR (it's a 37 minute watch but it's worth it - he is the real deal):

There are four possible outcomes:

1. A long war.
2. A 'bad peace', forced upon Ukraine.
3. A Ukraine win.
4. A Ukraine defeat.

Towards the end, he says he's coming round to the idea of British and French troops (and no US troops) fighting in Ukraine.

I think Putin has been holding on to the hope that Trump gets elected and pulls back from the USA's current Ukraine / NATO obligations.

However, Russia is in weak position economically and in terms of military personnel and hardware. It is difficult to envisage how it could take over and then hold further significant swathes of territory. The oligarchs are not happy, the Russian people are not because of the economy and if the war continues then more young people will flee the country which will have disastrous consequences for the army and for the economy.

Both sides have lost so many personnel and expended so much money that it is hard to see them agreeing to any negotiated settlement. Allowing Russia to keep the territory it has captured since 2014 would represent defeat to Ukraine, but handing that territory back to Ukraine would be unpalatable and unacceptable to Putin.

I could see reverting to the post-2014 border with Russia keeping Crimea but Ukraine regaining the lost oblasts, and that might be acceptable to Ukraine if they were guaranteed NATO membership, but that may not count for much if Trump were to cut US commitment to the organisation. There would need to be a binding non-aggression pact signed between NATO and Russia to respect the borders and integrity of the nation states going forward.

Here, it should not be forgotten that Russia has retained the territory of Kaliningrad on the Baltic - not ideal from a NATO viewpoint. Putin will be keen to preserve that. The West could push for Putin to give that up if they were to offer Crimea.

But recent history tells us Putin wishes to restore the Soviet Union and have Eastern Europe under Moscow's sphere of influence, so quite how Trump intends to resolve this quickly without throwing Ukraine under a bus remains to be seen. It would not be a good look for him if - having left Ukraine to rot - the other NATO allies rally round. That would mean committing personnel and military hardware to the region. Full marks to Starmer and Macron for having the foresight to meet this week. They have 2 months to get their Plan A and Plan B in place.

 

[raymondo]

Good, so long as the US can't veto their use

 

[Eric the meek]

I think Putin has been holding on to the hope that Trump gets elected and pulls back from the USA's current Ukraine / NATO obligations.

However, Russia is in weak position economically and in terms of military personnel and hardware. It is difficult to envisage how it could take over and then hold further significant swathes of territory. The oligarchs are not happy, the Russian people are not because of the economy and if the war continues then more young people will flee the country which will have disastrous consequences for the army and for the economy.

Both sides have lost so many personnel and expended so much money that it is hard to see them agreeing to any negotiated settlement. Allowing Russia to keep the territory it has captured since 2014 would represent defeat to Ukraine, but handing that territory back to Ukraine would be unpalatable and unacceptable to Putin.

I could see reverting to the post-2014 border with Russia keeping Crimea but Ukraine regaining the lost oblasts, and that might be acceptable to Ukraine if they were guaranteed NATO membership, but that may not count for much if Trump were to cut US commitment to the organisation. There would need to be a binding non-aggression pact signed between NATO and Russia to respect the borders and integrity of the nation states going forward.

Here, it should not be forgotten that Russia has retained the territory of Kaliningrad on the Baltic - not ideal from a NATO viewpoint. Putin will be keen to preserve that. The West could push for Putin to give that up if they were to offer Crimea.

But recent history tells us Putin wishes to restore the Soviet Union and have Eastern Europe under Moscow's sphere of influence, so quite how Trump intends to resolve this quickly without throwing Ukraine under a bus remains to be seen. It would not be a good look for him if - having left Ukraine to rot - the other NATO allies rally round. That would mean committing personnel and military hardware to the region. Full marks to Starmer and Macron for having the foresight to meet this week. They have 2 months to get their Plan A and Plan B in place.

There's much to discuss in that. I'll try to address your points in the order you made them.

Received wisdom has it that Putin wanted a Trump win, but he endorsed Kamala Harris in the US election. This could have been a bluff of course. Posting old naked pictures on Melania on Russian state TV was perhaps a gangster style powerplay or maybe a warning (that he has Kompromat on Trump and will use it). This could backfire spectacularly.

Russia is in a death spiral economically. There is a chasm between the bravado and sabre-rattling for the domestic TV market and the many enemies that Russia now has, compared to the brutal reality now facing it. Its own war is now unsustainable. A war that is approaching 1000 days, and which has gained him just 20% of Ukraine. Russia spends more than it makes. The ruble is near parity. Not with the dollar but with the cent. Its base rate is 21%, and will shortly be rising again. Having tried and failed to blackmail Europe over oil and gas, it has lost those customers forever. Its replacement customers, China and India, want the oil and gas at cost price. If Russia doesn't comply, they will simply take their business elsewhere. Whoever it was who blew up the Nordstream pipeline, landed a killer blow, right in Russia's breadbasket.

Regarding shifting borders, Ukraine doesn't need to cede any territory. Giving away Crimea to Russia, is a non-runner, as it has huge strategic value, would be used to disrupt Ukraine's sea trade routes, and because, well, Russia is desperate to keep Sevastopol as it is its only warm water ice free port. Russia lost the trust and goodwill of the west a long time ago, roughly when it became aware that the invasion was going ahead, at the same time that they said it wasn't. So how could there be any 'binding non-aggression pact'? Who could trust a single, solitary word that Putin says now?

 

[Eric the meek]

Good, so long as the US can't veto their use

Blimey. Europe is becoming a seething mass of warriors.

 

[peterward]

Musk getting involved

The very first line that NATO cheated and made promises not to allow any counties in East to join is a Putin claim, never admitted by Gorbachov and rigoursly denied by the US politicians in the room.

Musk keeps posting conspiracy theories that suit his agenda with a 1 or 2 word quip. He's trying to create narratives that suit his agenda, but based on lies.

 

[peterward]

Correction:

Outcome 2 is a frozen conflict.

Lough subsequently outlines another possible outcome which he thinks is most likely - a negotiated settlement, which the Ukrainians refer to as a 'bad peace'.

There is a lot of miscalculation in the west who wrongly assume its about Territory, or NATO or Nazis or any other baloney reason for Putin.

Its none of those things. Putins worldview and Ukraine view is inspired by dead Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, Putin quotes him often, personally repatriated his body and works from abroad, he even had a book of Ilyins writings sent to all Russian regional governors around 2010-2012. Tye Russian state mirrors Ilyins totalitarian ideals. Ilyin states clearly that any concept of a Ukraine independent of Russia (little Russia independent of Great Russia) must be exterminated and can never be allowed to exist independent of Russia.

Putin never will accept any part of Ukraine/Kyiv going into EU NATO for 20% of their fields or destroyed towns. All this BS about Nazis ir NATO is a smokescreen. He is genociding Ukraine areas of all Ukraine culture and references and he won't stop until he subjugated all of Ukraine, in time or is himself defeated. Any forced bad peace will not hold, it will only delay the next push.

The west has his motivations all wrong and Putin won't agree to any form of Ukraine being out of his sphere or Control.

 

[Eric the meek]

There is a lot of miscalculation in the west who wrongly assume its about Territory, or NATO or Nazis or any other baloney reason for Putin.

Its none of those things. Putins worldview and Ukraine view is inspired by dead Russian fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, Putin quotes him often, personally repatriated his body and works from abroad, he even had a book of Ilyins writings sent to all Russian regional governors around 2010-2012. Tye Russian state mirrors Ilyins totalitarian ideals. Ilyin states clearly that any concept of a Ukraine independent of Russia (little Russia independent of Great Russia) must be exterminated and can never be allowed to exist independent of Russia.

Putin never will accept any part of Ukraine/Kyiv going into EU NATO for 20% of their fields or destroyed towns. All this BS about Nazis ir NATO is a smokescreen. He is genociding Ukraine areas of all Ukraine culture and references and he won't stop until he subjugated all of Ukraine, in time or is himself defeated. Any forced bad peace will not hold, it will only delay the next push.

The west has his motivations all wrong and Putin won't agree to any form of Ukraine being out of his sphere or Control.

That's the first time I've heard that. So the peace talks are doomed before they begin? I wonder if Trump and his team are aware of it?