Jump to content

Russia


Sentience
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's clear what Putin's objective has been all along. The clearance either by emigration and/or the mass killing of residents using carpet bombing of strategic areas like the Black Sea Ports and the enlargement of the eastern provinces is simply to gain territory, nothing more. He's not bothered who lives or dies, women & children are as valid a target as any resistance fighter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

It's clear what Putin's objective has been all along. The clearance either by emigration and/or the mass killing of residents using carpet bombing of strategic areas like the Black Sea Ports and the enlargement of the eastern provinces is simply to gain territory, nothing more. He's not bothered who lives or dies, women & children are as valid a target as any resistance fighter.

Putin is just a vile oxygen thief. The sooner he is gone the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roxanne said:

I don’t fancy her chances after that. Brave woman tho. 

It is going to take a whole lot of brave people to take down Putin's regime.  This conflict has revealed the amount of brave people in Ukraine and also shown up plenty of cowardly and corrupt people in political offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrupt people in Russia or do you mean in the US and UK as well?

I can't disagree about what you mention about brave people taking down Putin.  It could be difficult.  But even if it does happen, it's not a solution to this problem.  The war isn't necessarily going to end without Putin.  Someone worse might replace him.  But if the regime is an improvement, the war might still go on.  If there was a ceasefire, how do things move on to a settlement?  

I haven't been reading a great deal of news about all of this but it seems like just the Ukraine and Russia have had talks.  China has been mentioned as being rather unimpressed by everything but sensibly keeping out and doing rather well for it.  But it doesn't seem like the United States has been involved in these negotiations.  I don't know why that is because I haven't been reading deeply into things.  It just seems strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

Corrupt people in Russia or do you mean in the US and UK as well?

In the UK and US specifically.  Anyone who had paid any attention knew just how rotten Russian politics was already.  Unfortunately some UK politicians were all to eager to accept the money without question.

(Also see money from other questionable regimes that has poured into London).

32 minutes ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I can't disagree about what you mention about brave people taking down Putin.  It could be difficult.  But even if it does happen, it's not a solution to this problem.  The war isn't necessarily going to end without Putin.  Someone worse might replace him.  But if the regime is an improvement, the war might still go on.  If there was a ceasefire, how do things move on to a settlement?  

The only way that Putin is ousted from power in Russia is if the Oligarch's realise that all their fortunes are worthless if no-one will deal with them and realise that they need this war to cease.  I can't see them being delighted at the prospect of a nuclear or chemical war that would also do damage to themselves, their assets and the positions they have wheedled their way into.

You are right though that there is no guarantee the next Russian President will be any better than Putin.

32 minutes ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I haven't been reading a great deal of news about all of this but it seems like just the Ukraine and Russia have had talks.  China has been mentioned as being rather unimpressed by everything but sensibly keeping out and doing rather well for it.  But it doesn't seem like the United States has been involved in these negotiations.  I don't know why that is because I haven't been reading deeply into things.  It just seems strange.

Could you imagine the US being involved in these peace talks?  The Russia representatives would never trust them and finding a resolution would be much more difficult.  Putin would not want to be seen as having the American World Police tell him what to do.

I believe that the negotiations have been in Belarus and Turkey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect the US to be involved.  It has a vested interest in what happens with Ukraine with it (the US) being the leader of the West and wishing to continue that role.  A European military matter is very much an American one.  And with its economic and military power plus its political clout, it should be involved in trying to defuse this situation.  I don't know how much trust matters, if you're not meaning that the participants might not trust each other to carry out their agreements.  The US could do with trying to find out what Russia can accept.  Ukrainian neutrality is an easy one.   Somehow Russia has to be given enough that it won't look to have been defeated.

Edited by La_Dolce_Vita
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

The US could do with trying to find out what Russia can accept.  Ukrainian neutrality is an easy one - NOT REALLY!   Somehow Russia has to be given enough that it won't look to have been defeated.

According to Sergey Lavrov they want Ukraine, Alaska and California. Pity they don't want Trump.

Edited by code99
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NATO members are not keen to have Ukraine join.  And Zelensky has now seemed to recognise that Ukraine isn't wanted yet.  The inflammatory problem here is that the US has kept it on the table.

It's the Dombas and, much more so, the Crimea that are going to tougher problems to solve.

Well...supposed Russian designs on Alaska and California are not to be taken seriously. It sounds rather silly to me.

I am no fan of Trump but would he be a worse President to have in this situation? I don't know.  It's the democrats who usually spout the hypocritically nonsense about sovereignty and wars for humanitarian causes. I don't think you'd get that with Trump.

Edited by La_Dolce_Vita
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

The NATO members are not keen to have Ukraine join.  And Zelensky has now seemed to recognise that Ukraine isn't wanted yet.  The inflammatory problem here is that the US has kept it on the table.

It's the Dombas and, much more so, the Crimea that are going to tougher problems to solve.

Well...supposed Russian designs on Alaska and California are not to be taken seriously. It sounds rather silly to me.

I am no fan of Trump but would he be a worse President to have in this situation? I don't know.  It's the democrats who usually spout the hypocritically nonsense about sovereignty and wars for humanitarian causes. I don't think you'd get that with Trump.

Anything to back this up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...