RugbyRebels

Not quite sure why we haven't discussed this one. What are the opinions on here? Do we think it's just noise, or do we they will do it? If they don't intend to do it, then what is the purpose of their military build-up?

Possible casus belli:
-Humanitarian crisis in Crimea due to lack of water
-Protect East-Ukraine Russians from nasty Ukrainian fascists

Possible war aims:
-secure control of North Crimean Canal
-force Kiev back into Russian orbit by force

Potential West response:
-Just sanctions and pleas for peace (Germany needs Russia's gas so will prioritise that).
-West moves troops in from Poland, Russia cuts gas... war. (Unlikely)

They did it once, with a bullshit referendum* and the tankies went wild for it. Why wouldn't they go for an encore?

Sanction the fuck out of them. Also, fuck Putin. Bent cunt.



*honestly, just lol if you think that fucking bullshit had any semblance of legitimacy.

Zhivago wrote:Not quite sure why we haven't discussed this one. What are the opinions on here? Do we think it's just noise, or do we they will do it? If they don't intend to do it, then what is the purpose of their military build-up?

Possible casus belli:
-Humanitarian crisis in Crimea due to lack of water
-Protect East-Ukraine Russians from nasty Ukrainian fascists

Possible war aims:
-secure control of North Crimean Canal
-force Kiev back into Russian orbit by force

Potential West response:
-Just sanctions and pleas for peace (Germany needs Russia's gas so will prioritise that).
-West moves troops in from Poland, Russia cuts gas... war. (Unlikely)

I'm think its more likely that they won't invade but theres definitely a risk they will. Putin will want something to blame for any invasion so he can look like the good guy riding to the rescue of someone.

If he isnt planning on invading then the purpose could just be to keep the Ukrainian government off balance. Deploying reserves etc takes time and focus - and avoids them focusing on other matters. It may also be to shore up support amongst the pro-Russian separatists.

Most likely of all, he is probably looking to test Biden following the Afghanistan debacle. He knows that the EU won't react effectively but how far can he push the US?

If Biden is moderately serious he will put American troops into the Ukrainian on a training exercise. Not too many but enough that Russia can't afford to start a shooting match without serious repercussions.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Not quite sure why we haven't discussed this one. What are the opinions on here? Do we think it's just noise, or do we they will do it? If they don't intend to do it, then what is the purpose of their military build-up?

Possible casus belli:
-Humanitarian crisis in Crimea due to lack of water
-Protect East-Ukraine Russians from nasty Ukrainian fascists

Possible war aims:
-secure control of North Crimean Canal
-force Kiev back into Russian orbit by force

Potential West response:
-Just sanctions and pleas for peace (Germany needs Russia's gas so will prioritise that).
-West moves troops in from Poland, Russia cuts gas... war. (Unlikely)

I'm think its more likely that they won't invade but theres definitely a risk they will. Putin will want something to blame for any invasion so he can look like the good guy riding to the rescue of someone.

If he isnt planning on invading then the purpose could just be to keep the Ukrainian government off balance. Deploying reserves etc takes time and focus - and avoids them focusing on other matters. It may also be to shore up support amongst the pro-Russian separatists.

Most likely of all, he is probably looking to test Biden following the Afghanistan debacle. He knows that the EU won't react effectively but how far can he push the US?

If Biden is moderately serious he will put American troops into the Ukrainian on a training exercise. Not too many but enough that Russia can't afford to start a shooting match without serious repercussions.

Not only is he testing Biden, but Russia is engaging in psyops targetting the US foreign policy community. If he can feel confident that the US will stand off, then he will feel emboldened to reach further with his actions in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Georgia though, there is every possibility that Putin finds himself in a mire if he decides to go this route. But I feel, with Ukraine, his heart is pulling him more than his head. He cannot accept that Russia has lost Ukraine.

Putin missed his chance to invade under the cover of the Olympics again.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Not quite sure why we haven't discussed this one. What are the opinions on here? Do we think it's just noise, or do we they will do it? If they don't intend to do it, then what is the purpose of their military build-up?

Possible casus belli:
-Humanitarian crisis in Crimea due to lack of water
-Protect East-Ukraine Russians from nasty Ukrainian fascists

Possible war aims:
-secure control of North Crimean Canal
-force Kiev back into Russian orbit by force

Potential West response:
-Just sanctions and pleas for peace (Germany needs Russia's gas so will prioritise that).
-West moves troops in from Poland, Russia cuts gas... war. (Unlikely)

I'm think its more likely that they won't invade but theres definitely a risk they will. Putin will want something to blame for any invasion so he can look like the good guy riding to the rescue of someone.

If he isnt planning on invading then the purpose could just be to keep the Ukrainian government off balance. Deploying reserves etc takes time and focus - and avoids them focusing on other matters. It may also be to shore up support amongst the pro-Russian separatists.

Most likely of all, he is probably looking to test Biden following the Afghanistan debacle. He knows that the EU won't react effectively but how far can he push the US?

If Biden is moderately serious he will put American troops into the Ukrainian on a training exercise. Not too many but enough that Russia can't afford to start a shooting match without serious repercussions.

Not only is he testing Biden, but Russia is engaging in psyops targetting the US foreign policy community. If he can feel confident that the US will stand off, then he will feel emboldened to reach further with his actions in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Georgia though, there is every possibility that Putin finds himself in a mire if he decides to go this route. But I feel, with Ukraine, his heart is pulling him more than his head. He cannot accept that Russia has lost Ukraine.

Russia has a long history there, both as a monarchical empire then as a soviet one. Strategically, Putin isn't doing that much different to the foreign policy of the Tsars, but I do agree that this is in part to do with his own perception of Russian greatness as anything else.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I'm think its more likely that they won't invade but theres definitely a risk they will. Putin will want something to blame for any invasion so he can look like the good guy riding to the rescue of someone.

If he isnt planning on invading then the purpose could just be to keep the Ukrainian government off balance. Deploying reserves etc takes time and focus - and avoids them focusing on other matters. It may also be to shore up support amongst the pro-Russian separatists.

Most likely of all, he is probably looking to test Biden following the Afghanistan debacle. He knows that the EU won't react effectively but how far can he push the US?

If Biden is moderately serious he will put American troops into the Ukrainian on a training exercise. Not too many but enough that Russia can't afford to start a shooting match without serious repercussions.

Not only is he testing Biden, but Russia is engaging in psyops targetting the US foreign policy community. If he can feel confident that the US will stand off, then he will feel emboldened to reach further with his actions in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Georgia though, there is every possibility that Putin finds himself in a mire if he decides to go this route. But I feel, with Ukraine, his heart is pulling him more than his head. He cannot accept that Russia has lost Ukraine.

Russia has a long history there, both as a monarchical empire then as a soviet one. Strategically, Putin isn't doing that much different to the foreign policy of the Tsars, but I do agree that this is in part to do with his own perception of Russian greatness as anything else.

I think one has to also consider the political environment during his formative years in his burgeoning career - he witnessed the decline and fall of the Soviet Union first hand, considering he was stationed in Berlin around the time of the fall of the wall. Seeing everything crumble must really stick with him as a disaster. Some of his comments on this topic in particular showcase very clearly that these events had a huge impact on the way he views Russia and its place in the world.

This guy seems to provide a pretty good/feasible overview of the situation.

Truss looking bit stupid with these comments
"supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea.”"

15 years ago the Ukrainian government got caught stealing LNG from the Gazprom pipeline and selling it on the open market.
It went to international arbitration 3 times and the Ukraine (with the support of the US) refused to pay for the gas they had stolen. At which point the Russkis moved into the Crimea.
The Ukraine government is rife with corruption and the US and the OPEC countries have been using them as a buffer to protect the criminal cartel they have been running with the Saudi's for 70 years.
I reckon we should let Ukraine fall.

You feel for the normal, decent people of the Ukraine. But if they voted for criminal right wing scum, corporate psychopathic imbeciles. Well, that's unfortunate.

It's a microcosm of brexit.

kk67 wrote:15 years ago the Ukrainian government got caught stealing LNG from the Gazprom pipeline and selling it on the open market.
It went to international arbitration 3 times and the Ukraine (with the support of the US) refused to pay for the gas they had stolen. At which point the Russkis moved into the Crimea.
The Ukraine government is rife with corruption and the US and the OPEC countries have been using them as a buffer to protect the criminal cartel they have been running with the Saudi's for 70 years.
I reckon we should let Ukraine fall.

Sort of thing a Gazprom shill would say. Reality is that it was a contract dispute caused by an ambiguous contract. Certainly does not justify annexation of sovereign territory.

Or are you really claiming that Ukraine was meant to pay for the gas used in compresor stations to transport Gazprom gas onwards to its other clients in Eastern Europe?

Zhivago wrote:

kk67 wrote:15 years ago the Ukrainian government got caught stealing LNG from the Gazprom pipeline and selling it on the open market.
It went to international arbitration 3 times and the Ukraine (with the support of the US) refused to pay for the gas they had stolen. At which point the Russkis moved into the Crimea.
The Ukraine government is rife with corruption and the US and the OPEC countries have been using them as a buffer to protect the criminal cartel they have been running with the Saudi's for 70 years.
I reckon we should let Ukraine fall.

Sort of thing a Gazprom shill would say. Reality is that it was a contract dispute caused by an ambiguous contract. Certainly does not justify annexation of sovereign territory.

Or are you really claiming that Ukraine was meant to pay for the gas used in compresor stations to transport Gazprom gas onwards to its other clients in Eastern Europe?

You know the term 'shill' is terminology for fuckwit.

Zhivago wrote:

kk67 wrote:15 years ago the Ukrainian government got caught stealing LNG from the Gazprom pipeline and selling it on the open market.
It went to international arbitration 3 times and the Ukraine (with the support of the US) refused to pay for the gas they had stolen. At which point the Russkis moved into the Crimea.
The Ukraine government is rife with corruption and the US and the OPEC countries have been using them as a buffer to protect the criminal cartel they have been running with the Saudi's for 70 years.
I reckon we should let Ukraine fall.

Sort of thing a Gazprom shill would say. Reality is that it was a contract dispute caused by an ambiguous contract. Certainly does not justify annexation of sovereign territory.

Or are you really claiming that Ukraine was meant to pay for the gas used in compresor stations to transport Gazprom gas onwards to its other clients in Eastern Europe?

And it’s hardly like Russian aggression is limited solely to the Ukraine.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

kk67 wrote:15 years ago the Ukrainian government got caught stealing LNG from the Gazprom pipeline and selling it on the open market.
It went to international arbitration 3 times and the Ukraine (with the support of the US) refused to pay for the gas they had stolen. At which point the Russkis moved into the Crimea.
The Ukraine government is rife with corruption and the US and the OPEC countries have been using them as a buffer to protect the criminal cartel they have been running with the Saudi's for 70 years.
I reckon we should let Ukraine fall.

Sort of thing a Gazprom shill would say. Reality is that it was a contract dispute caused by an ambiguous contract. Certainly does not justify annexation of sovereign territory.

Or are you really claiming that Ukraine was meant to pay for the gas used in compresor stations to transport Gazprom gas onwards to its other clients in Eastern Europe?

And it’s hardly like Russian aggression is limited solely to the Ukraine.

And it's not like Saudi or US aggression is confined to freedom of expression or democracy.

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Sort of thing a Gazprom shill would say. Reality is that it was a contract dispute caused by an ambiguous contract. Certainly does not justify annexation of sovereign territory.

Or are you really claiming that Ukraine was meant to pay for the gas used in compresor stations to transport Gazprom gas onwards to its other clients in Eastern Europe?

And it’s hardly like Russian aggression is limited solely to the Ukraine.

And it's not like Saudi or US aggression is confined to freedom of expression or democracy.

Nice whataboutery there. Putin is bullying his neighbours. The real question is whether the west will have the guts to push back if he tries to go too far.

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
And it’s hardly like Russian aggression is limited solely to the Ukraine.

And it's not like Saudi or US aggression is confined to freedom of expression or democracy.

Nice whataboutery there. Putin is bullying his neighbours. The real question is whether the west will have the guts to push back if he tries to go too far.

Sandy, I appreciate you have loyalty in this fight, but you're making a fool of yourself.

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote: And it's not like Saudi or US aggression is confined to freedom of expression or democracy.

Nice whataboutery there. Putin is bullying his neighbours. The real question is whether the west will have the guts to push back if he tries to go too far.

Sandy, I appreciate you have loyalty in this fight, but you're making a fool of yourself.

Never stops you. Stay off the Buckfast.

kk67 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote: And it's not like Saudi or US aggression is confined to freedom of expression or democracy.

Nice whataboutery there. Putin is bullying his neighbours. The real question is whether the west will have the guts to push back if he tries to go too far.

Sandy, I appreciate you have loyalty in this fight, but you're making a fool of yourself.

He really isn't. Putin is bullying his neighbours. There might be other stuff going on too, but what Putin is doing is undeniable.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

the British foreign secretary demanded that Russia withdraws troops from Ukraine’s borders, Mr Lavrov asked: “You do recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”

Ms Truss reportedly said the UK would “never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over those regions”. Two regions which are parts of Russia.

The Russians can't, in good faith, be appalled that the worst would be assumed of them when they're trying to flex their military might near the border of a nation that they recently grabbed a whole lot of land from.

Truss is gonna Truss because she's a god-tier idiot, but the assumption that the Russians are up to something is an impression that the Russians themselves are responsible for.

Zhivago wrote:the British foreign secretary demanded that Russia withdraws troops from Ukraine’s borders, Mr Lavrov asked: “You do recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”

Ms Truss reportedly said the UK would “never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over those regions”. Two regions which are parts of Russia.

Looks like Truss's MO is ignorant bluster. Who'd have thought it?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:the British foreign secretary demanded that Russia withdraws troops from Ukraine’s borders, Mr Lavrov asked: “You do recognise Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”

Ms Truss reportedly said the UK would “never recognise Russia’s sovereignty over those regions”. Two regions which are parts of Russia.

Looks like Truss's MO is ignorant bluster. Who'd have thought it?

Our politicians are widely mocked as untrustworthy, unprepared, ignorant, and without any kind of influence whatsoever. We're the clowns of the world right now. How did it come to this?

Oh yeah, right. All the stupid decisions and putting fuckwits in charge who then purged the leading party of half its sane people by booting out everyone who disagreed with Boris's idiotic Brexit deal. That's how.

Puja