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

[fly high]

Nice to see they have prepared lots of space for incoming new residents.

 

[Eric the meek]

Here is Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen.

'The war is not about territory but about political control over all of Ukraine'.

He may be right.

 

[Triggaaar]

Here is Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen.

'The war is not about territory but about political control over all of Ukraine'.

There's not a lot of difference between those two. A Russian puppet in charge of Ukraine would mean no more democracy there, and Ukraine would be like a part of Russia.

 

[Eric the meek]

There's not a lot of difference between those two. A Russian puppet in charge of Ukraine would mean no more democracy there, and Ukraine would be like a part of Russia.

Yes, I agree.

But as Nielsen points out, Russia may be closer to 'winning' the war than many of us might think, if its goals are an acquiescent Ukraine, in which it can influence/dictate the political decision making, rather than a complete takeover of Ukraine.

And the peace talks might just help Russia to achieve those goals.

Know your enemy.

 

[raymondo]

There's not a lot of difference between those two. A Russian puppet in charge of Ukraine would mean no more democracy there, and Ukraine would be like a part of Russia.

...and Russian companies would have priority access to the minerals in the Donbas, plus agricultural control. I see it as one and the same.

 

[Eric the meek]

...and Russian companies would have priority access to the minerals in the Donbas, plus agricultural control. I see it as one and the same.

It is the same, apart from the subtle difference that one won't appear in any proposed peace deal, while the other might.

Then, again as Nielsen points out, you have a scenario in which Putin calls a ceasefire, and Zelensky is left in the difficult position of either accepting a 'bad peace deal' or fighting on, without US help.

 

[raymondo]

It is the same, apart from the subtle difference that one won't appear in any proposed peace deal, while the other might.

Then, again as Nielsen points out, you have a scenario in which Putin calls a ceasefire, and Zelensky is left in the difficult position of either accepting a 'bad peace deal' or fighting on, without US help.

I see what you mean

 

[nevergoagain]

Well there's 2 less of them today

Two Russian oil tankers sink in Black Sea - reports

Video appears to show one of the tankers broken in half and sinking amid a heavy storm, with oil visible in the water.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Triggaaar]

But as Nielsen points out, Russia may be closer to 'winning' the war than many of us might think, if its goals are an acquiescent Ukraine, in which it can influence/dictate the political decision making, rather than a complete takeover of Ukraine.

And the peace talks might just help Russia to achieve those goals.

Know your enemy.

I agree that it's a point worth making, because there will be people who don't understand the problem with such a peace deal, but I wouldn't include many of us here in that. It's been blindingly obvious to most of us here that a peace deal that doesn't give Ukraine security, or the independence to deal with whomever it chooses, is a Russian victory.

A deal which means Ukraine isn't secure (for example, can't join NATO), and can't be prosperous (partly due to lack of security) is basically total victory for Russia.

A deal which allowed Russia to permanently keep a chunk of Ukraine, but allowed Ukraine to join NATO and the EU isn't what Russia wants, but I wouldn't describe it as a total loss for Russia. If in Jan 2022, God offered Putin the hypothetical deal of:
'you get the Donbas, Crimea permanently etc, and it will cost you 700,000 troops (a lot of them still alive, just wounedd) and half your reserves - or you never get any of Ukraine, and Crimea remains annexed but isn't recognised as Russian'

Do you think he'd take that deal? Of course it's not the whole of Ukraine he wanted, but that wasn't on offer by God and there was no third option. I think he'd take it. It's better than nothing, and it hasn't cost him anything (because 700,000 lives mean nothing to him). Sanctions would end and Russia could carry on as before, but with more land and access to the med etc. That doesn't feel like Russia losing to me.

On the other hand, would Ukraine take that deal? You lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens, a lot of infrastructure and money, 20% of your land, and in return you get nothing. Er, no thanks.

 

[Triggaaar]

Then, again as Nielsen points out, you have a scenario in which Putin calls a ceasefire, and Zelensky is left in the difficult position of either accepting a 'bad peace deal' or fighting on, without US help.

I don't agree with him there. It's not a difficult position, Ukraine simply keep fighting until Russia are out of their territory. Russians will have to fire back, so there will never be a ceasefire. Ukraine can lie as Russia do and say 'we've stopped firing, but they're still attacking so we have to fire back'. It's nonsense. Of course Ukraine don't stop fighting.

 

[Eric the meek]

I don't agree with him there. It's not a difficult position, Ukraine simply keep fighting until Russia are out of their territory. Russians will have to fire back, so there will never be a ceasefire. Ukraine can lie as Russia do and say 'we've stopped firing, but they're still attacking so we have to fire back'. It's nonsense. Of course Ukraine don't stop fighting.

I read an article of the findings of a committee of experts from Chatham House and the like. They were discussing the possible outcomes of the war.
The gist was that a very plausible outcome was that they keep on fighting without a winner emerging, neither of them making much headway. Then we are into the 'who will last the longest' territory. I would have said Russia, but I'm not so sure of late.

 

[Eric the meek]

I agree that it's a point worth making, because there will be people who don't understand the problem with such a peace deal, but I wouldn't include many of us here in that. It's been blindingly obvious to most of us here that a peace deal that doesn't give Ukraine security, or the independence to deal with whomever it chooses, is a Russian victory.

A deal which means Ukraine isn't secure (for example, can't join NATO), and can't be prosperous (partly due to lack of security) is basically total victory for Russia.

A deal which allowed Russia to permanently keep a chunk of Ukraine, but allowed Ukraine to join NATO and the EU isn't what Russia wants, but I wouldn't describe it as a total loss for Russia. If in Jan 2022, God offered Putin the hypothetical deal of:
'you get the Donbas, Crimea permanently etc, and it will cost you 700,000 troops (a lot of them still alive, just wounedd) and half your reserves - or you never get any of Ukraine, and Crimea remains annexed but isn't recognised as Russian'

Do you think he'd take that deal? Of course it's not the whole of Ukraine he wanted, but that wasn't on offer by God and there was no third option. I think he'd take it. It's better than nothing, and it hasn't cost him anything (because 700,000 lives mean nothing to him). Sanctions would end and Russia could carry on as before, but with more land and access to the med etc. That doesn't feel like Russia losing to me.

On the other hand, would Ukraine take that deal? You lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers and citizens, a lot of infrastructure and money, 20% of your land, and in return you get nothing. Er, no thanks.

The little that we have heard, and can rely on, of the content of what the peace deal may contain, suggests that a deal would favour Russia in some way. It goes without saying that this would be the wrong thing to do, and unacceptable to Ukraine anyway.

Russia needs to lose big. In spite of all the mood music, Trump doesn't need to save Russia or Putin. He has both the power and opportunity to bring Russia down, effect regime change and put an end to all the shit that Russia has dished out to the world and to its own people. This might be within a proposed peace deal, but could also be outside it. What a legacy that would be.

 

[raymondo]

The little that we have heard, and can rely on, of the content of what the peace deal may contain, suggests that a deal would favour Russia in some way. It goes without saying that this would be the wrong thing to do, and unacceptable to Ukraine anyway.

Russia needs to lose big. In spite of all the mood music, Trump doesn't need to save Russia or Putin. He has both the power and opportunity to bring Russia down, effect regime change and put an end to all the shit that Russia has dished out to the world and to its own people. This might be within a proposed peace deal, but could also be outside it. What a legacy that would be.

It would indeed be a fantastic legacy, but sadly I don't think it will happen (maybe just this week's mood for me).
The big guys would prefer to continue playing games and negotiating with each other (Trump, Putin etc).

I hope I'm wrong of course. Best chance could be that Putin refuses Trump peace deals, or quickly breaks them, Russian propaganda channels keep insulting Trump/ the US, and so Trump thinks 'f**k it, I'll arm Ukraine to the hilt".

 

[Triggaaar]

I read an article of the findings of a committee of experts from Chatham House and the like. They were discussing the possible outcomes of the war.
The gist was that a very plausible outcome was that they keep on fighting without a winner emerging, neither of them making much headway. Then we are into the 'who will last the longest' territory. I would have said Russia, but I'm not so sure of late.

As long as Europe support Ukraine, I can't see how they'd lose. As a Ukrainian, at what point would you say 'you know what, I'd now like to be a Russian slave'? I can't see how they'd ever give up. On the other hand, I can't see that Russia are capable of fighting forever, when they've no real need to (if it was Russia defending their country, it would be different). They're already having to ask North Korea for troops, which is a huge sign of weakness, and their economy if failing. In 12 months time Russia will be in an awful state, and there will be a lot of pressure from within.

 

[Triggaaar]

The little that we have heard, and can rely on, of the content of what the peace deal may contain, suggests that a deal would favour Russia in some way. It goes without saying that this would be the wrong thing to do, and unacceptable to Ukraine anyway.

It would definitely be the wrong thing, and unacceptable to Ukraine. I'm dubious about where these possible deals come from though. Possibly some stupid Trump info or possible Russian propaganda. I trust that Ukraine and her true allies will quickly point out the obvious flaws with such deals. My guess is that number one on the list is Ukraine's security. Without that, there's no peace, only a pause at best.

Russia needs to lose big. In spite of all the mood music, Trump doesn't need to save Russia or Putin. He has both the power and opportunity to bring Russia down, effect regime change and put an end to all the shit that Russia has dished out to the world and to its own people. This might be within a proposed peace deal, but could also be outside it. What a legacy that would be.

That sure would be nice. I don't think China would lose any sleep either.

 

[Eric the meek]

My guess is that number one on the list is Ukraine's security. Without that, there's no peace, only a pause at best.

Absolutely - 100%.

I just hope the American peacemakers agree. As Zelensky says 'a just and lasting peace'.

That sure would be nice. I don't think China would lose any sleep either.

Yes, it's a bit of a Christmas list. In a year or two's time, China could be walking into Siberia, unopposed.

(Come to think of it, the last time they took a bite of Siberia in the far east, that was unopposed).

 

[Eric the meek]

Date for the diary:

'The Bank of Russia Board of Directors will hold its next key rate meeting on 20 December 2024. The press release on the Bank of Russia Board decision is to be published at 13.30 Moscow time.'

10.30 am our time.

 

[essbee1]

Date for the diary:

'The Bank of Russia Board of Directors will hold its next key rate meeting on 20 December 2024. The press release on the Bank of Russia Board decision is to be published at 13.30 Moscow time.'

10.30 am our time.

What is the likely outcome of the meeting Eric, in your opinion?

 

[Eric the meek]

What is the likely outcome of the meeting Eric, in your opinion?

I would imagine the outcome of the meeting will be exactly what they're told to do by the Kremlin. I have no idea what that will be, or whether it will bear any resemblance to what the best course of action would be in the face of the economic realities.

Fwiw, I think the head of the central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, is one of the good ones. She tried to resign when the war started, but her resignation was refused. I don't know if she is still with us.

 

[Sirnormangall]

The little that we have heard, and can rely on, of the content of what the peace deal may contain, suggests that a deal would favour Russia in some way. It goes without saying that this would be the wrong thing to do, and unacceptable to Ukraine anyway.

Russia needs to lose big. In spite of all the mood music, Trump doesn't need to save Russia or Putin. He has both the power and opportunity to bring Russia down, effect regime change and put an end to all the shit that Russia has dished out to the world and to its own people. This might be within a proposed peace deal, but could also be outside it. What a legacy that would be.

For the war to end I think Putin has to be brought down: he won’t accept a peace deal that he can’t present to the Russian population as some form of victory and that would probably require some form of compromise by Zelensky which I doubt he’d give.