"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

[wlewisiii]

Given President Xi's support heretofore of Putin's invasion, and Xi's supporting Russian propaganda ploys even a day or two ago, I'd be surprised if that article has Xi's approval.

The phrase you're looking for is "Trial Balloon". The Chinese government is very fond of exploring policy changes this way.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

President Zelensky being astonishing once again. Outdoors with the Russian out for his head...

Zelensky deserves a medal himself.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Given President Xi's support heretofore of Putin's invasion, and Xi's supporting Russian propaganda ploys even a day or two ago, I'd be surprised if that article has Xi's approval.

Be ready to be surprised. The article clearly advocated supporting Putin only as long as he was successful. In Chinese intellectual history it was normal for mandarin scholars to advise emperors, and Xi's apparent tacit approval of this could be a way of projecting an image of gravitas and wisdom ahead of an impending policy change.

 

[wlewisiii]

Zelensky deserves a medal himself.

It's a pity, the dude is never going to get another comic gig after this.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It's a pity, the dude is never going to get another comic gig after this.

Hey, he's a Renaissance Man. After this is over he'll have the bully pulpit of the world from which to poke fun at authoritarianism wherever it tries to hide.

 

[wlewisiii]

Oooh, serious shade...

 

[Zipper730]

That is precisely how one leads: from the goddamned front.

That's the right way.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The phrase you're looking for is "Trial Balloon". The Chinese government is very fond of exploring policy changes this way.

I know what a trial balloon is, but I wonder if the Chinese really think this invasion can be used for what is essentially a rapprochement with America.

If they do think so, I think there's some unreasonable optimism in the higher levels of their government, whoever approved this for publication; and if they don't think so, Professor Hu's in for some tough times.

 

[pgeno71]

During WW2, (and this a WW2 forum) Stalin was all too willing to sacrifice both his soliers and people for victory. Millions of Soviets died as a result. Which Soviet Leader do you think Putin admires most and wishes to emulate?

He will do whatever it takes…

Jim

Didn't Catherine the Great take Crimea and launch a number of wars to take portions of Ukraine? Russia was always an expansionist empire. The country straddles two continents (three at one point - remember the US bought Alaska from Russia)) and goes from Poland to the Pacific for a reason. Also, there are plenty examples of expansionist leaders/nations in world history, just because someone's expansionist it doesn't make them Hitler. He was also not the first to employ genocidal policies to achieve his objectives, he just took it to a whole other level.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Interesting Chinese analysis. Considering that they are even more tightly controlled on these subjects than the Russians, one can presume that this is a trial balloon with the knowledge of, if not explicit approval of, Xi Jinping.

Seems like China is paving the way to ditch Putin.

Very interesting and obviously it has to have some kind of oficial support to be published.

 

[JDCAVE]

Didn't Catherine the Great take Crimea and launch a number of wars to take portions of Ukraine? Russia was always an expansionist empire. The country straddles two continents (three at one point - remember the US bought Alaska from Russia)) and goes from Poland to the Pacific for a reason. Also, there are plenty examples of expansionist leaders/nations in world history, just because someone's expansionist it doesn't make them Hitler. He was also not the first to employ genocidal policies to achieve his objectives, he just took it to a whole other level.

I never said anything about Hitler. Only that I thought that of all the Soviet leaders Putin most admired Stalin. I could have rephrased likely most admired Stalin. I could be wrong. Perhaps he doesn't identify himself with Stalin.

…and you are correct. Russia has always been expansionist. However, when one reviews the history of the 20th century, the state was referred to as the Soviet Union, not Russia.

Jim

 

[GTX]

https://www.news.com.au/world/absurd-myth-about-vladimir-putin-finally-shattered-amid-ukraine-invasion/news-story/e9e350ca7035286e07361400cf0b9a1e

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I fear you are incorrect my Spanish amigo.

The Russian plan has not claimed victory.....yet. The Ukrainian resistance is holding....at the moment. Time will tell us on this one.

The word win perhaps was incorrect. Perhaps achieve military goals is a better phrase.

My friend The Basket , I don´t claim that Rusia has achived victory neither that they has claimed it. My thought is that there is no way that they could achive it in any way now.

It doesn´t matter if Rusia claim victory tomorrow or in two months or in two years. Nobody would belive it, neither the upper officials in Rusia themselves and, certainly, not the soldiers maimed or injured or the relatives and loved of the fallen.

If ukraine resistance colapses tomorrow (unlikely) they will be remembered for a long time and will serve as a lighthouse for all the independece willing ukrainians for generations.

Neither the NATO or the EU countries or the neutrals like Finland or Sweden or even other neighbors of Russia will start doing business as usual the day after and will be very wary of any russian move and will have little fear of a russian army that failed so badly (to the point of recluting mercenaries from Siria) to fight a war. An army highly depleted and incapable of rebuilding due to the sanctions.

So Russia could achive military goals but in no way political goals, so there is no path to victory for Russian now:

- The baltic countries, the former Warsaw Pact countries, the nordic buffers will not renunce to leave NATO or to join it, at least for some generations.
- What ever is left of Ukraine won´t acept a demilitarized condition and a puppet goverment will face an battle hardened insurgence with foreing support or local troops of low moral.

As advised before, I believe Russia, certainly economically has taken such a high dive that it clearly finished as a modern economy. The decline is going to be biblical.

Another issue is that Russia can be turned into a democratic, peace and love country. 2 problems there is corruption is so rampant that it would be a miracle and Russia has no democratic tradition. It has always be controlled. The big bad wolf who controls the other wolves so to speak.

That is the reason I think that the West, and China, should scramble to aid Rusia as early and as fast as it could be posible, that is, when uncle Vlad is under house arrest, with a Hitlerian like end or a Gadaffi of Ceaucescu one. Of course this could only be achived by an inside plot. When the end come we should be ready to aid the russian people due to humanitarian reasons and also to prevent a Putin 2.0 in the decades after.

Use of chemical warfare against Kyiv is certainly an aspect. If the use of Chemical weapons seems to offer a win then I believe they would use them.

The only issue is Russia still has neutral powers or friends that may be outraged by this.

If we are still alive this time next year, then we will have greater clarity than we do now.

That (or the nukes) would be pretty much of a red line for all the neutrals even China, as the article shared by wlewisiii shows.

Hope the next year we all be around!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hardly anyone un Ukrainia or any where in the world could think that the demilitarization of Ukrainia is a good idea. It has pushed Finland and Sweden nearer to NATO, united NATO and reinforced its purpose and launched a rearmament plan across it, specially in Germany. It had pushed the EU to cut the energy link with Rusia at light speed. China could rise to lend a hand but it won't be free and could turn Rusia to a vassal state of China as someone point out (sorry, don't remember who).

Indeed, I can't imagine anything except a Will Smithesque Independence Day alien invasion doing more to unite so much of the earth behind one cause.

I know what a trial balloon is, but I wonder if the Chinese really think this invasion can be used for what is essentially a rapprochement with America.

I think the Iranians and especially the Venezuelas are hoping so.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[pgeno71]

I never said anything about Hitler. Only that I thought that of all the Soviet leaders Putin most admired Stalin. I could have rephrased likely most admired Stalin. I could be wrong. Perhaps he doesn't identify himself with Stalin.

…and you are correct. Russia has always been expansionist. However, when one reviews the history of the 20th century, the state was referred to as the Soviet Union, not Russia.

Jim

I know you did not mention Hitler, it was merely an add-on reference to another post and the repeated analogy that I keep seeing made in places. Also, you may very well be right that Putin identifies with or most admires Stalin. The purpose of my post was simply to point out that Putin was not the only expansionist leader in the country's history. And yes, while common usage equated the Soviet Union and Russia, they, technically, were not the same. The USSR, or more accurately, the CCCP, was the name given to the collection of nations and areas that the Russian Soviet Republic, which was a part the Soviet Union, exerted control over following the Bolshevik Revolution until its collapse in 1991.

 

[The Basket]

My point is two fold.

From a pure action point of view, Russia has invaded Ukraine to achieve 'something'.

Both political and military. Now, in my view if the goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state then Russia has succeeded. Ukraine economy or infrastructure or territorial integrity or flight of refugees all point to Ukraine failing. On Social media, we have the idea of Ukraine winning which i considered is very wrong because my points stated earlier show that Ukraine is in terrible trouble.

End of the day, Russian forces are within a few miles of Kyiv. This is hardly a military defeat for Russia. So for all the tanks blown up and Hinds shot down, Russia is achieving military and political aims in Ukraine. Maybe not without cost or without consequences...but purely talking about what going on in Ukraine and ignoring the wider picture.

So in my view, Russia can achieve political and military success in Ukraine simply by turning Ukraine into rubble. Which will probably happen. Then Ukraine becomes a disaster zone and Russia can be king of the dirt.

Which was probably the whole point of this. Turn Ukraine from a viable threat into a ruin.

Putin don't seem to care and his minions are seemingly willing to follow him to the end. So I have no idea where this ends or how it ends but....to be honest....my money is very bad unpleasant things are in our future.

Every disaster is on the table and it's going to be which level of disaster is acceptable. Full on disintegration of the Ukrainian state or nuclear war?

Economic disintegration or nuclear disintegration?

 

[SaparotRob]

Indeed, I can't imagine anything except a Will Smithesque Independence Day alien invasion doing more to unite so much of the earth behind one cause.

I think the Iranians and especially the Venezuelas are hoping so.

MSN

www.msn.com

Thought provoking article. Thanks for the link.

 

[SaparotRob]

My point is two fold.

From a pure action point of view, Russia has invaded Ukraine to achieve 'something'.

Both political and military. Now, in my view if the goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state then Russia has succeeded. Ukraine economy or infrastructure or territorial integrity or flight of refugees all point to Ukraine failing. On Social media, we have the idea of Ukraine winning which i considered is very wrong because my points stated earlier show that Ukraine is in terrible trouble.

End of the day, Russian forces are within a few miles of Kyiv. This is hardly a military defeat for Russia. So for all the tanks blown up and Hinds shot down, Russia is achieving military and political aims in Ukraine. Maybe not without cost or without consequences...but purely talking about what going on in Ukraine and ignoring the wider picture.

So in my view, Russia can achieve political and military success in Ukraine simply by turning Ukraine into rubble. Which will probably happen. Then Ukraine becomes a disaster zone and Russia can be king of the dirt.

Which was probably the whole point of this. Turn Ukraine from a viable threat into a ruin.

Putin don't seem to care and his minions are seemingly willing to follow him to the end. So I have no idea where this ends or how it ends but....to be honest....my money is very bad unpleasant things are in our future.

Every disaster is on the table and it's going to be which level of disaster is acceptable. Full on disintegration of the Ukrainian state or nuclear war?

Economic disintegration or nuclear disintegration?

If Putin does turn Ukraine into a rubble filled wasteland, it would achieve a buffer state of sorts. Not a very good one. Ain't disagreeing with you. I'm betting with you.
Full disclosure: I never win when I gamble.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

My point is two fold.

From a pure action point of view, Russia has invaded Ukraine to achieve 'something'.

Both political and military. Now, in my view if the goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state then Russia has succeeded. Ukraine economy or infrastructure or territorial integrity or flight of refugees all point to Ukraine failing. On Social media, we have the idea of Ukraine winning which i considered is very wrong because my points stated earlier show that Ukraine is in terrible trouble.

End of the day, Russian forces are within a few miles of Kyiv. This is hardly a military defeat for Russia. So for all the tanks blown up and Hinds shot down, Russia is achieving military and political aims in Ukraine. Maybe not without cost or without consequences...but purely talking about what going on in Ukraine and ignoring the wider picture.

So in my view, Russia can achieve political and military success in Ukraine simply by turning Ukraine into rubble. Which will probably happen. Then Ukraine becomes a disaster zone and Russia can be king of the dirt.

Which was probably the whole point of this. Turn Ukraine from a viable threat into a ruin.

Putin don't seem to care and his minions are seemingly willing to follow him to the end. So I have no idea where this ends or how it ends but....to be honest....my money is very bad unpleasant things are in our future.

Every disaster is on the table and it's going to be which level of disaster is acceptable. Full on disintegration of the Ukrainian state or nuclear war?

Economic disintegration or nuclear disintegration?

Rusia could turn Ukrainia in to rubble and make it an unviable state, which is a Putin´s goal, but the price would be too high to the point that Russia itself could be an unviable state.

And that is only one goal.

What about the rest that Putin had made public? This only reinforces NATO and bring closer the neutral european countries and other non european countries (but neighbors of Russia) to the West.

Not a very clever move. It looks like the beginning of the end for Putin, or so I hope.

 

[pgeno71]

My point is two fold.

From a pure action point of view, Russia has invaded Ukraine to achieve 'something'.

Both political and military. Now, in my view if the goal was the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state then Russia has succeeded. Ukraine economy or infrastructure or territorial integrity or flight of refugees all point to Ukraine failing. On Social media, we have the idea of Ukraine winning which i considered is very wrong because my points stated earlier show that Ukraine is in terrible trouble.

End of the day, Russian forces are within a few miles of Kyiv. This is hardly a military defeat for Russia. So for all the tanks blown up and Hinds shot down, Russia is achieving military and political aims in Ukraine. Maybe not without cost or without consequences...but purely talking about what going on in Ukraine and ignoring the wider picture.

So in my view, Russia can achieve political and military success in Ukraine simply by turning Ukraine into rubble. Which will probably happen. Then Ukraine becomes a disaster zone and Russia can be king of the dirt.

Which was probably the whole point of this. Turn Ukraine from a viable threat into a ruin.

Putin don't seem to care and his minions are seemingly willing to follow him to the end. So I have no idea where this ends or how it ends but....to be honest....my money is very bad unpleasant things are in our future.

Every disaster is on the table and it's going to be which level of disaster is acceptable. Full on disintegration of the Ukrainian state or nuclear war?

Economic disintegration or nuclear disintegration?

I agree Ukraine's near future looks depressing. For fear of a nuclear war, NATO has essentially conceded Ukraine to Putin. Sure, were supplying them with weapons, but I feel we're really laying the groundwork for an insurgency against occupation and/or a puppet government. I believe that there are two main problems with this situation. One, how long is this insurgency going to be and how much more devastation will it cause? Secondly, this insurgency will be fierce and I suspect vengeful. Right now, the Ukrainians have the moral high ground, but insurgencies are difficult to control, and guerillas cannot take to many prisoners. I am afraid at some point it will devolve into atrocity v. atrocity. Given current conditions most people might be alright with those types of acts committed against Russian troops and their mercenaries, but it is still ugly.