Russian invasion of Ukraine

To list them all it would take 3 days.🙂I could also have mentioned Nigel Farrage, Victor Orban,
but I just wrote the more blatantly reported.

Farage was never even an MP.

They just said here in the news that France may fall to Marine LePen after all, she has massively gained on Macron in the recent days.

LePen is someone who is openly pro Putin and ultra right wing and nationalist.

They said here that in France a lot of people have sufficient hatred against Macron that they would vote for anyone, regardless, even Putin himself if he was running, just to get rid of him.

No lessons learnt from history? God help us if that woman gets the job. A nationalist ultra right wing government in power in France? Who would have thought. Putin will be very happy indeed.

gallois wrote:

Things have gone too far now, that one struggles to see a way out for Putin and his cadre.

And yet, barring stroke or other ‘health mishap’ for Putin, if there is to be peace, it must contain some way out for Putin.

The alternative is a protracted conflict or escalation to WW3 (what level of death/destruction are we willing to tolerate?).

Frankly, I think Russia will do one big and absolutely brutal push on the east/south, take what they can and call it done.
The atrocities we have seen so far are probably nothing compared to what awaits. Such is the nature of war. Just look at Jemen.

Cynically, speaking from Slovakia, it was very nice of Ukraine to stop any Russia dreams of expanding further west.

Realistically, if they had agreed on neutrality and ceding Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk (which would probably be the end result of this fiasco/tragedy anyway) at the beginning, they would have been much better off. Well, too late for that.

A very interesting interview with Peskov (obviously authorised by Putin) here

PDF

If you set aside the BS, this is a big change of position for Russia. They also accept Finland and Sweden can join NATO.

Russia is doing a big push right now – it was expected all day. Not going too well:

Today, April 7, the Russian fascist troops carried out 6 attacks on the positions of Ukrainian defenders in the area of ​​the operational and tactical group “East”. As a result of the fighting, the enemy lost:
staff – up to 90
Tanks – 4
BMP – 5
AT – 9
Gliders – 1
UAV – 3

But today Russia has made dramatic changes, so all bets are off:

Soldiers were forbidden to take calls from Ukrainian and Belarusian numbers, and if the call is still accepted, then everything said by the interlocutor should be taken as a lie and provocation.
In addition, servicemen were ordered to read the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper daily, and commanders were to explain the “pros” of the war with Ukraine.

Reminds me of this fine chap whose picture hung in every classroom

Proper indoctrination is essential! You also need to start very young – around 12, which is the average age of the Russian soldiers.

Realistically, if they had agreed on neutrality and ceding Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk (which would probably be the end result of this fiasco/tragedy anyway) at the beginning, they would have been much better off. Well, too late for that.

Obviously, I don’t agree, because Ukraine is a sovereign country which should not have bits bitten off it, and capitulate every time somebody next door does that, with no support because too much of the mainland has screwed up its energy security and is buying gas and oil from the sworn enemy next door.

But you are probably right that if Russia rapidly invaded just the eastern bits, then given the lack of cohesion within the EU they would have got away with it, like they got away with Crimea. Instead, however, Putin basically said “we are invading all of Ukraine, if you try to stop us we will nuke you, and once we have Ukraine we will continue and invade every other non-NATO country, like Finland, Sweden, etc”. That, together with supremely skilled handling of the diplomacy by Ukraine, finally got W Europe off their big fat arses… And then we have yesterday’s announcement that they want to drive all the way to Lisbon.

This will go down in the history books on how a “superpower” can completely screw itself.

It’s amusing to read of the supposed support once provided to Putin by western leaders. I’d suggest you understand the meaning and purpose of glad handing

Nobody likes Putin, nobody ever did, except perhaps for a few naive, peace loving Europeans who thought if you were decent to him, he’d be decent in return. I think the reality is that power politics with a weasel dictator having unrestrained domestic power is hard, the public image of a relationship is preserved as a negotiation technique and the threat of forceful retaliation by a determined and powerful adversary is more effective than any other approach. When it’s gone you see what happens. Western Europe is almost irrelevant as a restraining force for Putin, The US executive branch is weak and focused on silly internal agendas, so Putin moves.

esteban wrote:

Realistically, if they had agreed on neutrality and ceding Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk (which would probably be the end result of this fiasco/tragedy anyway) at the beginning, they would have been much better off. Well, too late for that.

I used to think that way too. No longer, now that we hear from people like Medvedev that their ambition is all of Europe under their rule. (I found some articles about this by now).

Where will we get when everyone in the possession of nuclear weapons may just walk into anyone elses country and annex what ever they wish? It is bad enough that the MAD principle keeps the West from doing what would be the only right thing: A full blown military push to kick Putins arse right back out of that country.

Only you can’t do that if the end result is Europe looking like the surface of the moon. So all that can realistically be done is being done.

esteban wrote:

I think Russia will do one big and absolutely brutal push on the east/south, take what they can and call it done.

We’ll see. I still wonder if Putin might not just be mad enough at Selenski to take out Kiev with a tactical nuke. Just to show he can. If he does that, all bets are off.

Even if he does what you suggest, they won’t be able to just “call it done”. Ukraine will fight for the lands they are about to loose, with the possible exception of Lughansk and Donetsk. To loose access to the Black Sea is a no go for them. So the war will wage on and on like it did in Chechnia.

esteban wrote:

Realistically, if they had agreed on neutrality and ceding Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk (which would probably be the end result of this fiasco/tragedy anyway) at the beginning, they would have been much better off. Well, too late for that.

Peter wrote:

Obviously, I don’t agree, because Ukraine is a sovereign country which should not have bits bitten off it, and capitulate every time somebody next door does that,

Peter, my statement was not about what was right/wrong thing to do. It was just statement of fact that right now Ukraine is really much worse off, and, looking realistically how the things are evolving on the ground and in the negotiations, will not get better.

Peter wrote:

Putin basically said “we are invading all of Ukraine, if you try to stop us we will nuke you, and once we have Ukraine we will continue and invade every other non-NATO country, like Finland, Sweden, etc”.

You started OK, but then veered off to wild unfounded extrapolation.

Regarding the ‘Soviet Union from Lisbon to Vladivostok’: read the original. It was ‘… creating open Eurasia, from Lisbon to Vladivostok’. Of course, if you believe that Putin is building empire, you will interpret it that way … but if you think a bit more carefully, perhaps you shouldn’t. If nothing else, surely China (squarely in Eurasia) would have something to say about being part of ‘Soviet Union’.

And about the history books: I would wait a decade or two or five (provided we don’t end up as a radioactive dust), things are very unpredictable right now, also in the west.

It was just statement of fact that right now Ukraine is really much worse off, and, looking realistically how the things are evolving on the ground

My view is that liberty should be defended regardless of cost – if at all feasible.

and in the negotiations, will not get better.

That depends on how well you defended it

then veered off to wild unfounded extrapolation.

I was referring to the bit before: “we are invading all of Ukraine, if you try to stop us we will nuke you, and once we have Ukraine we will continue and invade every other non-NATO country, like Finland, Sweden, etc”. That was pretty obvious, because once you threaten nukes (as he explicitly did) you are giving notice that you will do whatever you want – because nobody wants a nuclear war. Ukraine 1st, all the rest of the former USSR 2nd, and then take your pick…

And about the history books: I would wait a decade or two

Indeed, thanks to that idiot Putin, the world will be a different place:

• military spending in Europe well up, especially on hi-tech weapons (heavy iron is obsolete)
• lots of zero-carbon nuclear power, which is really good (even Boris found a way to print the money, without involving China or France )
• greatly reduced dependence on Russia
• I reckon, a lot of effort will go into reducing dependence on China (which is too closely aligned with Russia for comfort) and this will be very hard, but it will be worth every penny because China has destroyed so many jobs over here, while so many of their businesses are run by gangsters
• NATO enlargement
• China much less likely to grab Taiwan (zero gain to them, but huge cost due to any sanctions)

What will happen in Russia depends. Probably Putin will be deposed, but, like Krushchev, not right away; the humiliation takes time to sink in (1962, 2022 respectively).