|
|
Post by Farmduck on Jan 25, 2022 19:52:55 GMT 10
I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Jan 25, 2022 22:42:09 GMT 10
Here's my solution:
Russia gets to keep the occupied parts of Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea.
In return:
Russia guarantees Ukraine access to Sea of Azov;
5-year period for people in Luhansk, Donetsk, Transnistria and Crimea to move to their preferred side of the new border;
Population transfer to be safeguarded by independent military/police force from neutral country - Brazil, Nigeria, Thailand maybe;
Transnistria returns to Moldovan and Ukraine control;
All Russian claims to Ukraine territory are extinguished.
In areas where the Crimea 12-mile zone clashes with Ukraine's 12 mile zone, the decision of international arbiters will be final. Ukraine retains 12-mile-zone rights in Sea of Azov.
Why would Russia agree? Because it looks like they won the parts of Ukraine they already occupy.
Why would Ukraine agree? Because Luhansk and Donetsk are useless to them. Their only products are gopniks who hate them and coal from pit mines - seriously, pit mines in [current year]? Most of the Donbas industry is from the Stalin and Kruschev era and, if Ukraine ever joined the EU, those industries would have to close under EU environmental rules anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Feb 3, 2022 16:42:04 GMT 10
I didn't think Putin would invade. My main interest in this story is how various media outlets have handled it. As a child of the peak Cold War, I almost get whiplash sometimes watching the modern treatment of Russia in the media. Tucker Carlson said something last week along the lines of, "Well, I suppose it's a good thing to have democracy in other countries like Ukraine, I guess." Any conservative commentator who had said that between 1950 and 2010 would have been pulled off the air immediately. Even raising it as a hypothetical would have killed off your ratings.
The "alternative" media outlets like Breaking Points still can't go a week without reminding us of the MSM coverage of the "Trump-Russia conspiracy," particularly Rachel Maddow's coverage. For all their bluster about the "corporate media" and how they are different because they don't restrict themselves to a corporate narrative, they are just as bad in that they lie by omission.
There's a common failure of logic that goes, "If A is bad and B is not A, then B must be good." This completely ignores the fact that, even if Putin had no direct arrangement with Trump, this doesn't whitewash Putin's history. It doesn't prove that Russia's internet division isn't working around the clock to influence Western opinions. It doesn't mean that Putin hasn't murdered any journalists or political opponents. It doesn't mean that Putin isn't a military imperialist determined to exercise control over any country he deems relevant.
"The USA does it too." Of course they do. To me this is exactly why we should expect Russia to do it. Even if there was an agreement back in the 1990s about NATO not expanding eastward, so what? Things change in 30 years. A couple of things that happened included the Russian invasion of Georgia, the establishment of the Russian puppet state in Transnistria, the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Russian support of separatists in Donbas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farmduck on Dec 9, 2022 1:15:53 GMT 10
One of the retired-general-type commentators on CNN has been warning people about this all along. We see lots of comments about Russia running out of troops but, with its much-smaller population, Ukraine faces the same problem. And with Ukraine relying on a limited number of border crossings for re-supply Russia could theoretically cut off most of that. If Russia ever starts more accurate air attacks they could quickly wipe out Ukraine's fuel supplies.
People think the West can always send more and that is true but how long does it take if the rail lines and storage tanks have been destroyed? One road tanker from Poland might refill 30 tanks or armoured personnel carriers but they'll run dry before the Polish tanker even gets home.
Unless the boycotts and sanctions bite hard and fast, Russia could go another 2-3 years. Ukraine can't. In 2-3 years Ukraine might have no infrastructure left. Russia has enough productive capacity beyond the reach of Ukrainian weapons to keep going but the reverse isn't true.
The real question, IMO, is how much are the Russians prepared to sacrifice for Putin? We may all see him as beyond salvation as a human but don't forget, 30% of US voters would still vote for Trump. Why would we expect the average Russian to be so much more politically sophisticated? Imagine what Putin can do in Russia with his level of internal control.
|
|
