The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[BobTheCoward]

we would have to be very wrong about conditions in Ukraine to consider a victory, even partial, for Russia to be a guarantee of any sort of stability in the future.

Thank you for your contribution Captain Obvious

There would be ways to increase stability and bring an end to the conflict. For example, the US could provide Russia with air support and strike at targets deep into Ukrainian territory.

 

[Lplus]

There would be ways to increase stability and bring an end to the conflict. For example, the US could provide Russia with air support and strike at targets deep into Ukrainian territory.

And that's just being silly.

 

[timhau]

Remember folks, there's one thing bobbing a thread and oral sex have in common: both are really hard to do solo.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And that's just being silly.

It would be probably be the fastest resolution to the conflict with the fewest lives lost. Probably far less than the US attacking Russian forces

 

[theprestige]

Begging the question of whether a Russian total or partial victory is preferable to continued war.

My personal calculus has revolved around the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that have been kidnapped and transported into Russia. It hinges on whether the Ukrainians can acquire something of value, and offer it to the Russians in exchange for getting their people back.

For me, those lives are paramount. I'd be willing to consider a substantial trade of territory and other things, to get them back. I would think it a great tragedy if the Ukranians were able to drive the Russians off their Crimean land bridge, but never saw those kidnapped Ukrainians again. I would consider trading the land bridge back to the Russians, in exchange for those lives being returned to Ukraine. I would consider giving up claims to the "separatist" regions, in exchange for those lives.

I'm not saying a Russian total or partial victory on those terms is preferable to continued war. I'm saying that's the central question, for me, about whether Ukraine should keep fighting or seek some sort of compromise that brings peace by giving the Russians something they want.

 

[eerok]

My personal calculus has revolved around the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that have been kidnapped and transported into Russia. It hinges on whether the Ukrainians can acquire something of value, and offer it to the Russians in exchange for getting their people back.

For me, those lives are paramount. I'd be willing to consider a substantial trade of territory and other things, to get them back. I would think it a great tragedy if the Ukranians were able to drive the Russians off their Crimean land bridge, but never saw those kidnapped Ukrainians again. I would consider trading the land bridge back to the Russians, in exchange for those lives being returned to Ukraine. I would consider giving up claims to the "separatist" regions, in exchange for those lives.

I'm not saying a Russian total or partial victory on those terms is preferable to continued war. I'm saying that's the central question, for me, about whether Ukraine should keep fighting or seek some sort of compromise that brings peace by giving the Russians something they want.

I disagree with rewarding any criminal action committed by Russia. The fight will end when justice is served. Russia needs to be brought before an international court, and held to account for its reprehensible behavior. Reparation must be paid and hostages must be freed. But first Russia must be beaten, which is the job Ukraine and the West face right now.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There was, as he reduced the membership fee to £3

But then he drove them all away with his kooky ideas?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But then he drove them all away with his kooky ideas?

When you could sign up for just £3 and get to vote for stuff like the party leadership there were plenty of Labour opponents gleefully saying they were signing up to make sure Magic Grandpa remained leader as there was no chance of Labour winning an election while he was in charge.

 

[theprestige]

I disagree with rewarding any criminal action committed by Russia. The fight will end when justice is served. Russia needs to be brought before an international court, and held to account for its reprehensible behavior. Reparation must be paid and hostages must be freed. But first Russia must be beaten, which is the job Ukraine and the West face right now.

I'm sorry, but "shoot the hostages to serve a higher principle" just doesn't resonate with me.

And I don't see any way to compel Russia to appear in court, pay reparations, or free hostages, that wouldn't just escalate to nuclear war if the matter were pressed. I think Ukraine's only real shot at getting its people back would be some kind of horse-trading on short-term goals.

 

[Michel H]

When you could sign up for just £3 and get to vote for stuff like the party leadership there were plenty of Labour opponents gleefully saying they were signing up to make sure Magic Grandpa remained leader as there was no chance of Labour winning an election while he was in charge.

Very funny, but, in his recent interview (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine), Jeremy Corbyn urged western countries to stop pouring arms into Ukraine, which was (according to him) only going to prolong the war.

Perhaps then he has a better solution for the economic crisis in the UK (which is taking place also in the European Union) than the bellicose Boris Johnson - Liz Truss team:

UK will fall into recession this year, warns Bank
The Bank of England raises rates as it warns inflation will rise over 13% and the UK faces a long recession

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62405037).

Obviously, as Putin has pointed out, the various "sanctions" have disastrous consequences for European economies.

 

[The Don]

Very funny, but, in his recent interview (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine), Jeremy Corbyn urged western countries to stop pouring arms into Ukraine, which was (according to him) only going to prolong the war.

Perhaps then he has a better solution for the economic crisis in the UK (which is taking place also in the European Union) than the bellicose Boris Johnson - Liz Truss team:

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62405037).

Obviously, as Putin has pointed out, the various "sanctions" have disastrous consequences for European economies.

The UK economy might shrink by 1% over that period.

The Russian economy is forecast to shrink by more than 15%.

I can see why Putin wants the sanctions to end

 

[theprestige]

The UK economy might shrink by 1% over that period.

The Russian economy is forecast to shrink by more than 15%.

I can see why Putin wants the sanctions to end

Yeah, but you can also see why Putin is still able to build and train indefinite numbers of tanks and troops for the long term, under his current and forecasted economic conditions.

 

[Michel H]

The UK economy might shrink by 1% over that period.

If you have some savings in the bank, they might shrink by much, much more than one percent over one year, because of the high inflation rate.

 

[The Don]

If you have some savings in the bank, they might shrink by much, much more than one percent over one year, because of the high inflation rate.

The UK inflation rate is half that of Russia.

 

[sackett]

If you have some savings in the bank, they might shrink by much, much more than one percent over one year, because of the high inflation rate.

Not Wensleydale! Grommet, DOOOOO something!

 

[The Don]

Yeah, but you can also see why Putin is still able to build and train indefinite numbers of tanks and troops for the long term, under his current and forecasted economic conditions.

Yes, because he still has considerable foreign currency inflows and the ability to print money.

Like Nazi Germany, the "wartime" economy bears little resemblance to the "real" one. Meanwhile the non- military service economy grinds to a halt.

 

[plague311]

Yes, because he still has considerable foreign currency inflows and the ability to print money.

Like Nazi Germany, the "wartime" economy bears little resemblance to the "real" one. Meanwhile the non- military service economy grinds to a halt.

If he has the ability to print money and has considerable foreign currency inflows why aren't his soldiers getting paid?

 

[Wudang]

Yeah, but you can also see why Putin is still able to build and train indefinite numbers of tanks and troops for the long term, under his current and forecasted economic conditions.

Don't they rely on a number of European firms for a lot of parts and machine tools?

 

[theprestige]

Ask The Don. He's the one that believes the Russian economy is strong enough to build and train replacement forces faster than they're getting worn down in Ukraine.

 

[kookbreaker]

If he has the ability to print money and has considerable foreign currency inflows why aren't his soldiers getting paid?

Putin might be sending the pay….those along the way may be helping themselves.