Vladimir Putin and Russia

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

 

[Meenzer 14083]

This (from a Finnish friend on a Eurovision messageboard, obviously) feels like quite a cogent take on it all from a neighbour's perspective:

 

Quote

 

Russia and Putin do not fear a military invasion by NATO or anyone.

 

The NATO forces in Europe are by orders of magnitude too small to launch an effective invasion on Russia. Who would even want to trigger WWIII by attacking a state with nuclear weapons?

 

The proof that Russia knows they are under no military threat is evident. They've moved most of their armed forces to attack non-NATO Ukraine. This would weaken them on other fronts if there were any other fronts they would have to worry about.

 

If someone was just waiting for an opportunity to attack Russia, this would be it. Why does no one take it? Why don't NATO countries take Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg now? Well.

 

1. They can't. (And Russia knows they can't.)

2. They respect the sovereignty of Russia over its own cities. (And Russia knows they do.)

3. They are not mad. (And Russia knows they aren't.)

 

What Putin *does* fear is democratic progress eventually reaching Moscow. Authoritarian governments have been toppled in a number of post-communist states in a series of revolutions, dubbed the colour revolutions, starting in 2000. In the internet era, these revolutions have followed a similar trajectory and shared many traits, in particular, the heightened role of international NGOs. From Putin's point of view, this has looked like a form of information warfare machinated by the West rather than a grassroots movement.

 

Nations moving from the Russian sphere of influence to the Western sphere of influence would in itself be worrisome for Putin, but that is not the gist of it. There is a natural conclusion to this path. Imagine authoritarian Russia surrounded by successful, democratic, liberal nations, some of which share a similar culture, language and history, like Belarus and Ukraine. The revolution would find its way to Russia itself. While not bad for the Russian nation as a whole, it would be bad to Putin and his cronies, so it is rational for Putin to fear it and quell this development where he can.

 

It is from this lens that the actions of Putin make any sense, seasoned with some good ol' imperialism. The claims that Russia is defending its own security interests are a smokescreen.

 

 

[ewerk 26506]

Holding Rayvin back from the battlefield for a moment, surely our biggest weapon here is to simply cut Russia out of the international financial market. Have a joined up western policy that makes it illegal to do business with Russian banks and state linked companies. Then freeze the assets of anyone linked to the Russian regime. Make the rouble fall through the floor break them that way.

[Renton 17841]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Holding Rayvin back from the battlefield for a moment, surely our biggest weapon here is to simply cut Russia out of the international financial market. Have a joined up western policy that makes it illegal to do business with Russian banks and state linked companies. Then freeze the assets of anyone linked to the Russian regime. Make the rouble fall through the floor break them that way.

 

Sounds good to me, but I know fuck all how these things work, admittedly. 

[scoobos 297]

1 hour ago, PaddockLad said:

 

So we've to be happy if he stops at the border of the Baltic states, Poland & Romania?  That's just more of the same tbh.  Sorry but he needs to be physically stopped.  NATO need to mobilise. UK service men and women will die. Hes got to be stopped. We also need to make plans to assassinate him.  We have to provoke/manipulate someone in his inner circle to do it. 

If NATO mobilise against Russia when they are NOT in NATO territory then it will only server to "prove" Putin's poin, in Russia, it could be full scale war and no one wants that - We've the worst leaders in at the worst time. This is absolutely sickening and I'm gutted that diplomacy has failed us so badly.

Frankly, I also don't think NATO can stop him - the same way that no one can stop the USA when we invaded Iraq over the petrodollar becoming EURO. 

We've cut our forces to shit, we've said tanks are not relevant anymore etc etc. 

I know its  "pussy move" but I'd rather we didnt over commit, and get our arses handed to us - perhaps the pre-tense of NATO as a deterrent might work, but if we go into Ukraine now, we play straight into their hands.

btw, 60% of Tory funding comes from Sanctioned Russians, if you didnt know.

Edited February 24, 2022 by scoobos

[Tom 13883]

A proper government would requisition Abramovic’s UK assets, including Chelsea football club and any properties and all of his financial affairs. Same as any other oligarch operating in the UK

 

But we don’t have a proper government. We  are Russia’s lapdog.

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

The financial route is the only way to dislodge Putin.

Make life unbearable for his crony oligarchs, freeze their assets and expell them from western countries. They will soon cut him loose

[ewerk 26506]

3 minutes ago, scoobos said:

If NATO mobilise against Russia when they are NOT in NATO territory then it will only server to "prove" Putin's poin, in Russia, it could be full scale war and no one wants that - We've the worst leaders in at the worst time. This is absolutely sickening and I'm gutted that diplomacy has failed us so badly.

Frankly, I also don't think NATO can stop him - the same way that no one can stop the USA when we invaded Iraq over the petrodollar becoming EURO. 

We've cut our forces to shit, we've said tanks are not relevant anymore etc etc. 

I know its  "pussy move" but I'd rather we didnt over commit, and get our arses handed to us - perhaps the pre-tense of NATO as a deterrent might work, but if we go into Ukraine now, we play straight into their hands.

btw, 60% of Tory funding comes from Sanctioned Russians, if you didnt know.

How on earth do you think that the Russian military defeats a collection of NATO’s biggest players?

[scoobos 297]

Wow these are strange times, I'm conversing with ewark

How on earth do you think NATO gets the number of troops to the area? We needed to build up much earlier if they were going to do that. 

I dont think we can compete with a fully mobilised, planned Russian attack force of these numbers. What we could do is attack Russia on its weakened fronts , if it does, as alleged, have 70% of its forces in combat right now.

Right now alaska is open, there's absolutely zero build up there - that's on US Soil - which shows exactly what the US intent is - and like it or not , NATO is , to some extent, in the pocket of the US.

Worst leaders at the worst time.

Personally, and this is fookin horrible - I'm hoping they roll over Ukraine like we did Iraq and this be over in a matter of days. but from the videos coming out, it's not like that - and the Ukrainians are more ready than we thought. Lots of exploding tank footage out there .

Edited February 24, 2022 by scoobos
ewark love.

[Renton 17841]

I think we're playing up the Russian's military strength here. After all, the USSR is dead and the Warsaw pact has switched sides, which obviously is what eats Putin up. The Russian economy is less than Italy and the US have been outspending them on defence by magnitudes for decades. That said, NATO is not and never was set up for offensive reasons. It is much more than a match for Russia defensively though. 

[Gemmill 34681]

7 minutes ago, scoobos said:

Wow these are strange times, I'm conversing with ewark

How on earth do you think NATO gets the number of troops to the area? We needed to build up much earlier if they were going to do that. 

I dont think we can compete with a fully mobilised, planned Russian attack force of these numbers. What we could do is attack Russia on its weakened fronts , if it does, as alleged, have 70% of its forces in combat right now.

Right now alaska is open, there's absolutely zero build up there - that's on US Soil - which shows exactly what the US intent is - and like it or not , NATO is , to some extent, in the pocket of the US.

Worst leaders at the worst time.

Personally, and this is fookin horrible - I'm hoping they roll over Ukraine like we did Iraq and this be over in a matter of days. but from the videos coming out, it's not like that - and the Ukrainians are more ready than we thought. Lots of exploding tank footage out there .

 

I'm totally clueless on this, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but wouldn't the better solution be for this to become a "forever war" in the Ukraine? Embarrassing Putin on the world stage and more importantly at home, and (eventually.... hopefully) resulting in him being deposed? I don't see what blasting through Ukraine would do other than embolden him. 

 

Or are you thinking that all he wants is Ukraine and it all goes away if he gets it easy? 

[scoobos 297]

Excuse the double post. News on the IT grapevine is that Russia have "destroyed by deletion" over 20% of the Ukraine Governments data . They are deploying ransomware, without the ransom. There's also reportedly a chance that these attacks self replicate, so could essentially leak , if we do not cut off all peerages to the Ukraine ;/

Scary thought that, if its true - specifically that its the equivalent of passport, residency and citizenship data - its going to create the biggest group of people without a state that we've seen in modern times. God help those refugees , as they'll have zero proof they are even Ukrainian.

As I say, this is gossip in my sector - but its looking to be at least partly factual , so this is what Cyber warfare is. GPS is 100 to 200 metres out apparently , (god knows how they do that) - Denial of service on all government sites. 

I always thought cyber warfare would be messing with targeting systems etc, not deleting entire governments.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

 

 

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

I'm totally clueless on this, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but wouldn't the better solution be for this to become a "forever war" in the Ukraine? Embarrassing Putin on the world stage and more importantly at home, and (eventually.... hopefully) resulting in him being deposed? I don't see what blasting through Ukraine would do other than embolden him. 

 

Or are you thinking that all he wants is Ukraine and it all goes away if he gets it easy? 

 

Fewer lives are lost if it's over fast.

[PaddockLad 14642]

Nato wasn't being defensive when they bombed Belgrade and Kosovo in 1999 without a UN mandate. This is a completely different planet to that obviously but the precedent is there....

[scoobos 297]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

I think we're playing up the Russian's military strength here. After all, the USSR is dead and the Warsaw pact has switched sides, which obviously is what eats Putin up. The Russian economy is less than Italy and the US have been outspending them on defence by magnitudes for decades. That said, NATO is not and never was set up for offensive reasons. It is much more than a match for Russia defensively though. 

I wish I was so optimistic.

Right now, they have 3x our total UK troop numbers - engaged overseas in conflict. If NATO can do anything, it needed to be mobilised with more than the 2000 troops on the border of belarus etc.. As I said before though, this isnt NATO's war and it shouldn't be. 

[Gemmill 34681]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Fewer lives are lost if it's over fast.

 

That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but doesn't he then just hoy a dart at a map and decide on his next target? Rolling over Ukraine in days can't be considered a good outcome, surely? 

[Toonpack 6899]

27 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

True. I still feel as though he wouldn't have committed to this unless he was sure that he could take it, and that the West wouldn't intervene though. He's not an idiot.

 

 He can invade, but he hasn't got the forces to hold it against resistance, it's too big and too populated.

 

Also re a point you made in an earlier comment. We/NATO have a significant technological advantage over the Russian capabilities, that's why they waited for daylight to invade - their sensors etc. aren't that "state of the art".

 

Russia does have massive air superiority in the area (over Ukraine) and shit loads of tanks (West massively reduced armour capabilities because "tanks are a cold war thing" - great idea!!!) but as the old adage goes, you can take territory with tanks, but you can't hold it with tanks. Putin's got about a third of his military capability in/around Ukraine, there's brigades from Siberia and all over involved, they can't stay there indefinitely.

[scoobos 297]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

I'm totally clueless on this, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but wouldn't the better solution be for this to become a "forever war" in the Ukraine? Embarrassing Putin on the world stage and more importantly at home, and (eventually.... hopefully) resulting in him being deposed? I don't see what blasting through Ukraine would do other than embolden him. 

 

Or are you thinking that all he wants is Ukraine and it all goes away if he gets it easy? 

I think that yes, its Ukraine and it'll stop - but also, if it gets bogged down it'll become like Vietnam etc - the only possible way the Ukranians can win this is guerilla warfare , it seems to be the only effective countermeasure to modern warfare. That means a lot more dead over a longer time. 

Fuck me, I can't believe this is happening and I can't believe how angry I am at all sides. Putin is a clever bastard, that's for sure - Trump and boris, then Biden and Brexit all apparently had his hand in, one way or another - and look at the result.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

Nato wasn't being defensive when they bombed Belgrade and Kosovo in 1999 without a UN mandate. This is a completely different planet to that obviously but the precedent is there....

 

Moreover, Putin has just declared war on the Ukraine for 'self defence' We can say whatever we damn well want at this point, in terms of justifications.

[Renton 17841]

1 minute ago, scoobos said:

I wish I was so optimistic.

Right now, they have 3x our total UK troop numbers - engaged overseas in conflict. If NATO can do anything, it needed to be mobilised with more than the 2000 troops on the border of belarus etc.. As I said before though, this isnt NATO's war and it shouldn't be. 

 

Yeah, but I'm really not sure the number of troops is relevant. Air and done power will be. You need troops on the ground for occupation, which we don't need.

 

I realise we're all sounding like armchair generals here btw, I'm not even on the Dunning Kruger curve here, I'm just thinking out loud. 

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

 

That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but doesn't he then just hoy a dart at a map and decide on his next target? Rolling over Ukraine in days can't be considered a good outcome, surely? 

 

Yes, that's what I think - but then I also think we should be stopping him. He is testing us repeatedly and I am convinced will try for a minor NATO country next time out. If we really think this stops at Ukraine, letting him have it, while deplorable and cowardly, is probably the rational thing to do. If we think he'll probably continue, then we'd be better off making him pay in lives and money for every step he tries to take. We're giving him a free hit.

[scoobos 297]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

 He can invade, but he hasn't got the forces to hold it against resistance, it's too big and too populated.

 

Also re a point you made in an earlier comment. We/NATO have a significant technological advantage over the Russian capabilities, that's why they waited for daylight to invade - their sensors etc. aren't that "state of the art".

 

Russia does have massive air superiority in the area (over Ukraine) and shit loads of tanks (West massively reduced armour capabilities because "tanks are a cold war thing" - great idea!!!) but as the old adage goes, you can take territory with tanks, but you can't hold it with tanks. Putin's got about a third of his military capability in/around Ukraine, there's brigades from Siberia and all over involved, they can't stay there indefinitely.

I think your average Russian does want Ukraine though, I remember there been reports of unrest when they "only" annexed Crimea . I think they will believe that once its took, the majority will become "russian". If they've deleted all citizenship records etc, that becomes even more attractive. It's hard to cross borders without papers, most UK people don't understand that - but if you are born without papers, it's difficult to even be a refugee!

[Toonpack 6899]

3 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I think that yes, its Ukraine and it'll stop 

 

It won't, Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea now Ukraine, he's already said he sees the Russian "empire" as the old USSR countries, if he get's away with this, there'll be another.

[scoobos 297]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Moreover, Putin has just declared war on the Ukraine for 'self defence' We can say whatever we damn well want at this point, in terms of justifications.

This is the "not black and white" that I get emotive about. 

How can we say this , after Iraq, Afghanistan etc? we said they were defensive and the Eastern world KNEW it was bollox. 

War is fucking horrible and greed and nationalism generally drive it - greed for us and Nationalism for them - the cause doesnt matter, its the actions that count. 

We do FUCK all when its not of economic importance. Russia does nothing when its not of nationalistic importance. 

I honestly dont think even Sanctions will work, Russia's pretty self sufficient isnt it?