Ukraine Conflict - Alle Dinge unterliegen Interpretation je nachdem, was Interpretation zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt herrscht, ist eine Funktion der Macht und nicht die Wahrheit

[Zoraptor]

46 minutes ago, Malcador said:

At least she didn't say Voronezh as well. 

You've left out the other part of Ukraine that she didn't acknowledge Russian sovereignty over, Rostov.

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

This is just to clarify, i.e. whether you intended that as an example of what may happen or a description of what already has.

As above, happened, though I tend to see it as the geopolitical equivalent of karma farming/ virtue signalling rather than a serious statement of intent. It's just that a lot of the metaphorical upvotes for their statements actually expect them to follow it as policy (lord knows why, given their history of promises).

I'm mostly amused that it's the UK saying it though. 13-1 vote against them on the Chagos from the ICoJ (in 2019, so not exactly back in the bad old days of colonialism), violation of Resolution 1514 in splitting them off from Mauritius in the first place, forcibly deporting the entire indigenous population of two thousand people (having claimed that they didn't exist and the islands were uninhabited) to Mauritius and managing to get a princely 5 (no typo, five) supporters in the UNGA for their position- all for a military base to blow brown people up from with no chance of retaliation. Slight whiff of hypocrisy there.

[kanisatha]

Re. a need for general mobilization in Russia, the consensus among Western military experts appears to be that a week into the Donbas offensive Russia is again performing poorly and way behind schedule, and is continuing to suffer a staggering number of casualties. Their battlefield gains are minimal and incremental, with the Ukrainians often taking back lost territory at a later point in time. The UK MoD even assesses that 25% of Russia's 93 tactical battle groups in the fight are 'combat ineffective' now. So taking and then holding these territories is going to require a lot of manpower, but even then will still only come at a very heavy price in losses. Can Putin's regime sustain those losses politically? I wonder.

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Re. a need for general mobilization in Russia, the consensus among Western military experts appears to be that a week into the Donbas offensive Russia is again performing poorly and way behind schedule, and is continuing to suffer a staggering number of casualties. Their battlefield gains are minimal and incremental, with the Ukrainians often taking back lost territory at a later point in time. The UK MoD even assesses that 25% of Russia's 93 tactical battle groups in the fight are 'combat ineffective' now. So taking and then holding these territories is going to require a lot of manpower, but even then will still only come at a very heavy price in losses. Can Putin's regime sustain those losses politically? I wonder.

That sounds a bit similar to how things turned out in WWII... Russia (well, the USSR) performing disastrously against an enemy (Germany) with superior training, motivation and doctrines to eventually ramp up mobilization and "swamp" the enemy with large numbers (and better officers in charge too after a few years of warfare). Casualties were still horrendous, but it mattered less for a population in the grip of nationalist ecstasy.

 

[kanisatha]

9 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That sounds a bit similar to how things turned out in WWII... Russia (well, the USSR) performing disastrously against an enemy (Germany) with superior training, motivation and doctrines to eventually ramp up mobilization and "swamp" the enemy with large numbers (and better officers in charge too after a few years of warfare). Casualties were still horrendous, but it mattered less for a population in the grip of nationalist ecstasy.

 

Yes, or it could go the way of the other earlier war, leading to the military abandoning the regime thus facilitating revolt.

[Gorth]

3 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Yes, or it could go the way of the other earlier war, leading to the military abandoning the regime thus facilitating revolt.

I suspect Putin has a tighter grip on the local media than Nicholas had

Edit: The Romanovs were not exactly popular with the people in the first place. Iirc, he (the Czar) needed victories very badly after the disastrous Far East war with Japan as the peasants had started to get very restless already, 10 years before WWI.

[213374U]

7 hours ago, Azdeus said:

I still think a better option would be to increase Swedish defensive spending and have an alliance between us.

The biggest obstacle to a Nordic or European defense alliance that has European interests and security in mind is... the US. Never going to happen so long as NATO exists.

 

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

2 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Yes, or it could go the way of the other earlier war, leading to the military abandoning the regime thus facilitating revolt.

I suspect Putin has a tighter grip on the local media than Nicholas had

Edit: The Romanovs were not exactly popular with the people in the first place. Iirc, he (the Czar) needed victories very badly after the disastrous Far East war with Japan as the peasants had started to get very restless already, 10 years before WWI.

Yeah, but it's a really awesome parallel. Let's actually stop for a moment and consider what could happen if Putin is removed via internal coup or a civil war*. Last time that happend, by all accounts, you got people in power who were even bigger butchers than the incumbent by quite a bit. Do people really think that a Putin ouster is going to end with Mr. 4% support taking over so that we can all go sing kumbaya in the Red Square? Look at the political landscape in Russia and realize that Putin is actually the moderate guy there. Is the endgame a rehash of the Western 1918 expeditions into Russia (but guys I'm sure this time it'll pan out) to put cool guy Navalny in the Kremlin or what? How do people imagine this playing out in their heads?

 

*civil war in a country with the largest nuclear stockpile is a truly terrifying prospect and I'd argue that anyone should consider the status quo better than that possibility, but here we are.

Edited May 4, 2022 by 213374U

[xzar_monty]

It is indeed rather scary that the question of "What comes after Putin?" is completely in the air. Of course the equivalent question tends to be in the air in most places, but given Putin's dictatorial actions, there doesn't appear to be much else on the whole political landscape, apart from him. So it does look both strange and worrying.

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Elerond said:

In Finland support from Nato changed from one party publicly supporting it and 21% of population supporting joining to all put all parties publicly supporting joining to Nato and 65% of population supporting joining.

Change is mainly caused by fact that Russia is willing to sacrifice so much for little gain which caused people lose faith to foundation of Finland's defense which is to make attack cost so much that there is no benefit for doing so, but such defense doesn't work against enemy which is willing to sacrifice all for nothing.

Finland is also putting Sweden in difficult situation as big sunk of  Sweden defense currently relies on co-operation with Finland and it seems that Swedish politicians fear that they will lose that co-operation if Finland joins in Nato and Sweden does not. 

Elerond you must never think badly about your country doing the right thing

Its in the best interests of the stability and security of Finland to join NATO. I watched an interview on CNN last night with a Finnish minister who sits on a EU\Finnish security council (I cant remember her name ) and she corrected Christiane Amanpour by saying " Finland is not neutral, we sit firmly in  the Western camp and we are opposed to Putins War " 

Finland joining NATO is a progressive move and we should all be supporting it 

[Zoraptor]

People tend to forget how quickly Putin himself came on the scene. August 1999 was when he was appointed PM, prior to that he was unknown at a national level; not much over 4 months later Yeltsin resigned. And Yeltsin was extremely paranoid about succession, so much so he abolished the VP position.

Last thing I'd be worried about is no succession plan, because it would be stupid to have a public one. The succession plan failing on the other hand could be a disaster, but at least the British Tabloids assure us that the Russian nuclear arsenal doesn't work, so there is that.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Azdeus said:

No offence taken, and I do hope you don't take offence at my views either.

I feel that Sweden in NATO would be a disgustingly hypocritical thing considering what our past stances are/have been.

Azdeus we cant dwell on the past and any historical  political views. This is a brand new world since Ukraine was invaded and the EU is making new security arrangements to address this global threat from Russia 

We would all  feel much better knowing that Sweden is part of NATO, you guys are part of the EU family and the thought of you guys being excluded from NATO just doesn't feel right?

[xzar_monty]

36 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Last thing I'd be worried about is no succession plan, because it would be stupid to have a public one. The succession plan failing on the other hand could be a disaster, but at least the British Tabloids assure us that the Russian nuclear arsenal doesn't work, so there is that.

If you were alluding to me, I most certainly didn't mean there should be a succession plan as such. What I meant that the whole political scene in Russia is so focused on Putin (no real party system, no opposition, etc., you know it very well) that there is genuine potential for chaos after Putin, unlike in many other countries. As for whether there's a working succession plan like in, say, North Korea, that may indeed be quite possible.

I'm contradicting myself by saying this, but I don't think the British tabloids are worth talking about.

And yes, Putin's appearance was indeed swift. It is interesting to speculate about whether 1) Russia was in dire need of a commanding figure (which Putin didn't appear to be at first) after the very bad 1990s and Putin sort of just appeared to come along, or 2) Putin manufactured his rise with a guile similar to what he has subsequently showed in power, or 3) a fair amount of both, and other factors, too. But with so many variables, this stuff is likely to remain speculation.

Below: interesting historical insight on Russian leadership.

Edited May 4, 2022 by xzar_monty

[bugarup]

31 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Last thing I'd be worried about is no succession plan, because it would be stupid to have a public one. 

And Putinistan haven't done anything stupid yet, innit. 

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

The biggest obstacle to a Nordic or European defense alliance that has European interests and security in mind is... the US. Never going to happen so long as NATO exists.

Well define 'European interest' because we in East REALLY don't trust frog eaters to help us against Russia as they demonstrated time and time again. Only one willing is US. Germans and French would sacrifice us in blink of eye until there is russian tank division 100km from France they will do nothing

[bugarup]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

*civil war in a country with the largest nuclear stockpile is a truly terrifying prospect and I'd argue that anyone should consider the status quo better than that possibility, but here we are.

How do you imagine keeping the status quo with the country like Russia today? Keep giving putler whatever he wants because "Well, he has to stop somewhere, right? Right?"

[pmp10]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

I believe a Polish official had something similar, but can't find a decent source at the moment - maybe they meant taken in this war rather than 2014

You likely mean the polish president. The line was that no territorial loss of Ukraine will be recognised.

That position (and the UK one) is just diplomatic grandstanding. Everyone understands that Ukraine has little prospect of winning back land lost this war, to say nothing of Crimea or DNR/LPR.

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, bugarup said:

How do you imagine keeping the status quo with the country like Russia today? Keep giving putler whatever he wants because "Well, he has to stop somewhere, right? Right?"

QFT

Their is no status quo since Putins War started and no way this will end until Putins War is over and Russia has retreated. Russian apologists would happy appease Putin until every  East European country  is  back under the control of Russia because someone who lives in Spain has no historical memory or interest in  how bad things were under Communism 

So of course you will hear unconvincing fears about a "Nuclear war " and we "mustn't provoke the Russian Bear " and other hyperbole 

And as usual this type of argument ignores the obvious reason why we here, Russia invaded a sovereign country. This is on Putin and nothing is going change that ever 

[BruceVC]

44 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

Well define 'European interest' because we in East REALLY don't trust frog eaters to help us against Russia as they demonstrated time and time again. Only one willing is US. Germans and French would sacrifice us in blink of eye until there is russian tank division 100km from France they will do nothing

" frog eaters " 

Frog is delicious by the way, its a white meat and tastes similar to chicken wings 

[Zoraptor]

52 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

If you were alluding to me..

Not really alluding to anyone, except nebulous 'people' in general. And to be fair to people in general, rather a lot of them wouldn't even have been born in 1999.

Thing is though, Putin's Russia has been so stable, relatively speaking, that people in general do forget how unstable it was under Yeltsin. Apart from the bankruptcy in 1998 he also had 5 Prime Ministers in 4 years from 1996-99, as opposed to 6 (including of course a certain VV Putin for 4 years) in the next 22 after he'd gone. He'd got rid of the VP, he was beholden to a load of oligarchs whose power makes the current crop look like children, he didn't have a succession plan, he didn't bother building a Party at all, and he really was a few vodka shots away from a drug/alcoholic coma for pretty much his entire time in office. We only knew who his successor was for sure on 1 Jan 2000, since after his resignation he literally couldn't fire Putin any more.

Allegedly, the reason Putin was picked so far as Yeltsin was concerned was extremely simple; he promised not to go after him once he'd left office so his family could keep all the money he stole and he could die in peace. He'd never have got the same from Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky who outright hated him and may well have formally brought back the death penalty just for him. And his approval ratings and those of his political friends were subterranean- 2%- so there was no point any of them standing.

If Putin dies Mishustin takes over temporarily, that is known. It's also very strongly suspected that he won't be the successor but just interim. There will be a successor who stands in the election after that, and one who has already been decided on. But there's literally no point in saying publicly that it's say, Medvedev, (who it likely isn't either) because all it does is 'reassure' westerners and make him a target immediately.

Really though, most of the 'concern' from the diplomatic/ media side of the west is, basically, concern trolling. "Russia is so unstable, I wish we knew who Putin's successor is [and as above we actually do, at least in the interim] so maybe it wouldn't be quite as bad, but we don't, so you can see how unstable Russia is" sort of thing.

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Chilloutman said:

Well define 'European interest' because we in East REALLY don't trust frog eaters to help us against Russia as they demonstrated time and time again. Only one willing is US. Germans and French would sacrifice us in blink of eye until there is russian tank division 100km from France they will do nothing

...do you really see Russian tanks getting anywhere near your neighborhood? Consensus seems to be that they couldn't even cross the Dniepr if they wanted. So which one is it? Are Russians a joke militarily or an unstoppable juggernaut that only America can face down? It's getting hard to keep track because the perception seems to shift back and forth depending on the point the speaker wants to make.

NATO made sense when the Soviets had hundreds of thousands of soldiers and thousands of tanks parked in East Germany. Pretty sure that an European defense pact would be more than enough to beat back a Russian attack on a EU member.

Can't blame you for your misgivings about the French, though.

 

 

1 hour ago, bugarup said:

How do you imagine keeping the status quo with the country like Russia today? Keep giving putler whatever he wants because "Well, he has to stop somewhere, right? Right?"

Oh, I don't know. How does implementing these Minsk agreements that were supposed to prevent the very war we are seeing today sounds for a start?

I mean, I get that the current narrative has literally turned into this.

So it turns out, the story goes, that Putin's master plan was always to re-create the Soviet Union. That conveniently justifies any degree of escalation of the situation because if not Putin will be worse than literally Hitler or something. Doesn't matter that that flies in the face of observed facts, statements and policies over the past 20 years. We have "Putler" to fight now so that's a fight to the death and... that's the entire depth of the argument. Am I missing anything?

It's pretty funny. People keep (rightly) laughing at Russian propaganda aimed at convincing Russians that they are fighting literal nazis in Ukraine. And over here, we keep trying so hard to paint Russia as the actual nazis, with unironical references to "Putler".

Obligatory:

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Their is no status quo since Putins War started and no way this will end until Putins War is over and Russia has retreated. Russian apologists would happy appease Putin until every  East European country  is  back under the control of Russia because someone who lives in Spain has no historical memory or interest in  how bad things were under Communism

Who exactly are those "Russian apologists" you keep going on and on (and on and on and on...) about?

If you want to insult somebody, call them by name.

[Chilloutman]

29 minutes ago, 213374U said:

...do you really see Russian tanks getting anywhere near your neighborhood? Consensus seems to be that they couldn't even cross the Dniepr if they wanted. So which one is it? Are Russians a joke militarily or an unstoppable juggernaut that only America can face down? It's getting hard to keep track because the perception seems to shift back and forth depending on the point the speaker wants to make.

No, because we are in NATO. And exact reason why they can't even cross Dniepr CURRENTLY is NATO. If they mobilize its different story. Russian military is joke, it doesn't mean that 10 million 'russian' soldiers are not scary. I really don't see contradiction in it

[BruceVC]

48 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Who exactly are those "Russian apologists" you keep going on and on (and on and on and on...) about?

If you want to insult somebody, call them by name.

I would but I was told not to do that

[bugarup]

47 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Oh, I don't know. How does implementing these Minsk agreements that were supposed to prevent the very war we are seeing today sounds for a start?

Even if we ignore the fact russia shat on those agreements in the first place when it chose to attack, implementing them in full is giving demented dictator of a fascist country what he wants (and stupidly hoping he'll stop there). 

Also,

Quote

Are Russians a joke militarily or an unstoppable juggernaut that only America can face down? It's getting hard to keep track because the perception seems to shift back and forth depending on the point the speaker wants to make.

Nothing is shifting here, because russian army is militarily semi-joke that not only America can face down, but only America and maybe Brits seem to be willing to face down. There is difference. 

Also2,

Quote

NATO made sense when the Soviets had hundreds of thousands of soldiers and thousands of tanks parked in East Germany. Pretty sure that an European defense pact would be more than enough to beat back a Russian attack on a EU member.

Quite likely that it would not. Quite likely that it would be some deep concerns and perhaps even condemnation of actions, but those losers in their insignificant countries east of East Germany (that belong to russia's influence sphere anyway thus should know their place and accept it) cannot really matter more than precious status quo with aside of cheap gas, right? 

Also3,

Quote

Doesn't matter that that flies in the face of observed facts, statements and policies over the past 20 years

 Just like this war that putler wages against Ukraine! 

 

[xzar_monty]

2 minutes ago, bugarup said:

 Just like this war that putler wages against Ukraine!

Touché.

(Except I wouldn't say putler.)

Edited May 4, 2022 by xzar_monty

[bugarup]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

Touché.

(Except I wouldn't say putler.)

Yeah, well I do try to regularly come up with creative names for that puffy decomposing bloatfish, but sometimes I just don't think that short rodent-faced melting waxdoll is worth the effort.