so what the most likely scenarios from here on? . . .
I think it will be mostly scenario 3, with a bit of scenario one. Putin will not stop until he achieves his ‘decapitation” of Ukraine government, installing — for the moment — a pro-Russia puppet government. He also will have secured much of eastern Ukraine, roughly on a line drawn from Odessa to Kharkiv. This will be annexed, effectively if not officially. This gives Russia control of access to the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Ukraine becomes a landlocked country with a badly damaged economy, possibly making dependence on Russia more difficult to avoid. I do not see how Putin can continue on to capture Lviv and western Ukraine. Seems Russia’s forces are overextended already, with supply line and other logistical troubles. It would not be necessary for this advancement under this scenario unless Zelensky decamps to Lviv. (I think at some point very soon Zelensky and his top aides should do so. His presence in Kiev has been inspiring for his people and his country’s defense, but that also is why it is imperative that he remain alive and free — even if that means leaving the country.) I think Putin believes the focus of the allies will lessen over time, as will the unity over the sanctions. There probably will be some break in the ranks, but I think Putin is overestimating that. It is not only the economics, though. For much of the world, Russia has become a pariah country, along the lines of North Korea. That stain may endure longer than Putin believes.
Oh, Ohmsen, to be clear, I am not calling you a fascist. I am calling you out for posting an incessant row of arguments all of which support the perspective of a man (Putin) who meets just about every definition of fascist that I can think of. Whether you want to associate yourself with his cause is your free right. Absolutely.
Definitely not. The question remains, why did all those who for so long foretold this war do so little to stop it, and so much to hasten the disaster Russia has now set in motion?
Why didn't the government of Germany guarantee in writing that it would veto any additional NATO membership? It would have solved at least half of the problem. Why didn't any other NATO government do so?
And what are they doing now? Where are their initiatives for peace?
Why TF should it? NATO is a defensive pact. It wasn't threatening Russia. It had no plans to attack Russia. All NATO nations would have welcomed open relations with Russia and were happy to do business with it. And I bet most Russians were very happy with this arrangement. Not a single NATO nation has made any hostile attack on Russia since 1989, and why should they?
No, the only person threatened by Ukraine was Putin, not Russia the country, and not because of NATO but because Ukraine dared to have free elections. This narrative that it is all the US's fault for extending its hegemony under the guise of NATO is pure bullshit, a handy way to whitewash Putin's true motives, which is simply to silence any opposition and stamp out free democracy.
But good to see you are not on the side of democracy, peace and free speech by still willing to tout all the arguments put forward by your fascist paymaster despite almost unanimous international consensus to the contrary. Glad we have you on board to put us right and correct the narrative.
And you, as a German, with the heavy weight of German history behind you, how do you manage to sleep at night, supporting this murderous regime, that is doing exactly the same thing the Nazis did in 1939?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 5, 2022 - 7:12am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
so what the most likely scenarios from here on?
. . .
I think it will be mostly scenario 3, with a bit of scenario one. Putin will not stop until he achieves his âdecapitationâ of Ukraine government, installing â for the moment â a pro-Russia puppet government. He also will have secured much of eastern Ukraine, roughly on a line drawn from Odessa to Kharkiv. This will be annexed, effectively if not officially. This gives Russia control of access to the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Ukraine becomes a landlocked country with a badly damaged economy, possibly making dependence on Russia more difficult to avoid.
I do not see how Putin can continue on to capture Lviv and western Ukraine. Seems Russiaâs forces are overextended already, with supply line and other logistical troubles. It would not be necessary for this advancement under this scenario unless Zelensky decamps to Lviv. (I think at some point very soon Zelensky and his top aides should do so. His presence in Kyiv has been inspiring for his people and his countryâs defense, but that also is why it is imperative that he remain alive and free â even if that means leaving the country.)
I think Putin believes the focus of the allies will lessen over time, as will the unity over the sanctions. There probably will be some break in the ranks, but I think Putin is overestimating that. It is not only the economics, though. For much of the world, Russia has become a pariah country, along the lines of North Korea. That stain may endure longer than Putin believes.
Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path. No-one listened to them and here we are. Small compilation thread of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
..The ex-official described the incident at the NPP as a deliberate provocation that was carefully designed. Azarov then pointed to President Zelensky's reaction to the news – a request to the West introduce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. "The fire occurred at night and he immediately addressed the United States and Britain. This shows that it was a planned provocation", he said. Azarov's statement echoes that of the Russian Defence Ministry. On Friday, Major General Igor Konashenkov said that a group of Russian National Guard officers came under attack from Ukrainian saboteurs while patrolling the territory of the Zaporozhskaya NPP. <<
While, it is almost certainly true that Zelenskiy tried to leverage the incident for what it is worth, the above bit is pure Russian b/s, and while we are on that subject, remember this?
Ivanhoe/Ohmsen wrote:
Since the US and NATO put up a (CIA inspired) puppet-regime in Ukraine and there's been a constant war, where's the evidence, that Russia is going to invade Ukraine?
How did that work out for you? Still on the payroll it seems.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 5, 2022 - 6:34am
kurtster wrote:
That thought has been going through my mind this past week, too.
At the very least, I have already decided that if the cost of hydrocarbons went up due to a total embargo of Russian hydrocarbons, I would suck it up and go with it and make that sacrifice. Short of a direct military confrontation, nothing would be quicker and more effective in stopping Putin.
Edit: Should this embargo be ordered later than sooner such as within the next week at the longest before Ukraine falls, no problem, but if it is afterwards, then why TF bother, I would withdraw my support. Timing is everything for it to matter.
This seems to me to be a non sequitur. I do not believe that âacquiescingâ in paying higher prices at the gas pump remotely equates with the bravery being shown by Ukrainians.
One wonders whether one would be able to summon the bravery being shown by so many Ukrainians. I wonder.
That thought has been going through my mind this past week, too.
At the very least, I have already decided that if the cost of hydrocarbons went up due to a total embargo of Russian hydrocarbons, I would suck it up and go with it and make that sacrifice. Short of a direct military confrontation, nothing would be quicker and more effective in stopping Putin.
Edit: Should this embargo be ordered later than sooner such as within the next week at the longest before Ukraine falls, no problem, but if it is afterwards, then why TF bother, I would withdraw my support. Timing is everything for it to matter.
early morning rambling on my part just to clear my own head:
status quo:
The Russian army is rolling sluggishly onwards, smothering everything in its path.
The Ukrainian government and army are astonishingly both still intact
It appears (at least to me), the Ukrainian army are not getting anywhere near the military hardware they need to ward off the combined forces of the Russian army
Putin has gone all in (as expected) and is enjoying majority support at home for the war. His future presumably depends on a successful outcome.
Dissent has been made a crime in Russia
Most other countries have imposed massive sanctions on Russia
The global economy is taking a hit with higher prices for commodities and falling share prices.
So what happens next? Scenario 1: The Ukrainian resistance survives, gets the hardware it needs and starts scoring military successes
a. cease-fire / truce with the lines on the map redrawn, giving Russian control of a large part of Ukraine. hard to see how this would work in the current situation. maybe by holding certain cities hostage, Putin strikes a bargain, giving him the eastern half of the country.. but he doesn't look like the sort of guy who would settle for this. And if the Ukrainians were starting to score successes, it is unlikely they would make concessions. But if a truce were worked out: stalemate
If it didn't, Putin would be forced to back-down or escalate. Which could lead to: b. conventional option all-out onslaught on everything he can hit using every (conventional) weapon he has, including thermobaric bombs (already used) - the question would be, how long can he maintain this till he runs out of resources? he has a big army, recently modernised, but are his supply chains up to the task? I'm guessing no, particularly if the Russian economy is paralysed by sanctions. Politically, he'd frame this as NATO attacking Russia (á la Nazi Germany) to inspire greater domestic production but I doubt they'd pull this off if the war became protracted. Final outcome: defeat for Russia at enormous personal cost to Ukraine (already happening)
c. nuclear option he goes all out as he has threatened to do, on the assumption that the west would never have the courage to respond to nuclear with nuclear. So how would the west respond? Tit for tat? Tit for two tats? Full on conventional invasion? China would be forced to take sides - at the very least also imposing sanctions, further isolating Putin, which means he'd effectively have to go for broke.
Scenario 2: The Lindsey Graham option Change of Russian leadership. More business-friendly oligarchs take control and bring Russia back into line. Ukraine is respected as a sovereign country. Sanctions against Russia are removed. Back to business as usual. Final outcome: win win for everyone, except Putin I guess. With luck, democracy returns to Russia.
Scenario 3: The Ukrainian resistance loses the battle, Russia takes total control of Ukraine and reintegrates it into some kind of neo-Soviet dictatorship. Sanctions would remain in place, at least for a while. Europe works hard on developing its defence forces, millions of Ukrainians are effectively exiled. Over time sanctions would slip as one or the other country is lured by cheap Russian commodities. Russian nationalism rises due to opposition to the sanctions but opposition to the Russian leadership would also rise leading to greater internal tension, exacerbated by demographic change (younger people are more likely to be anti-Putin and more pro-www). How would Putin react? He'd need to be simultaneously oppressive (as he already has) to smother domestic opposition but also externally aggressive to stoke up a distraction and foster domestic support. He'd very likely look for a new war, but where? NATO would be a tall order. I'm guessing Serbia/Kosovo, something like that. Probably over time there would be a new iron curtain and Russia would do all its trade with China as well seeking allies in other places, like Africa. Economically, a loss for everyone, except for China and arms manufacturers. Militarily a win for Putin, but at what cost? Lindsey Graham option would always remain on the table as oligarchs see their fortunes crumble. Russian economy tanks. Not very rosy prospects for anyone very much and at great personal tragedy for the Ukrainians. Given that all of these options don't actually reward Putin with very much (best scenario: he stays in power but over a greatly diminished economic base), what's going on in his head?
I fear he actually does entertain dreams of some kind of global fascist regime, with him at the top, a coterie of oligarchs underneath who are all beholden to him and some kind of free trade structure underneath that. Fact is though, even in the best scenario for him, he becomes a puppet of the Chinese, dependant on them for trade. The Chinese though still need a strong USA and Europe to export to, so there is no way they'd be on the side of Russian fascist expansion.
The thinking among some U.S. and European officials is that Mr. Putin might stop the war if enough Russians protest in the streets and enough tycoons turn on him. Other U.S. officials emphasize the goals of punishment and future deterrence, saying that the carcass of the Russian economy will serve as a visible consequence of Mr. Putinâs actions and a warning for other aggressors.
That has been tried before (after WW I), and it had some unintended consequences. Expect Big Nationalism.
The French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, has used some of the harshest language yet to articulate the mission, telling a radio program on Tuesday that Western nations were âwaging an all-out economic and financial war on Russiaâ to âcause the collapse of the Russian economy.â He later said he regretted his words.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain said on Monday that the sanctions were âintended to bring down the Putin regime.â Mr. Johnsonâs office quickly corrected the statement, saying that it did not reflect his governmentâs view and that the goal of the measures was to stop Russiaâs assault on Ukraine.
