A not so enthusiastic piece about the long game.

What’s Putin’s Next Move? Look to Syria

Russia has learned some dangerous lessons from the West’s inaction in the past. Here’s how to avoid a grimmer tragedy in Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...syria-00028041

I can´t understand why Ukraine has not fielded suicide bombers. I know it´s not the culture but there must be enough fanatics wanting to stick it to the Russians.

Amazing how flexible people can be when faced with forced change.

Just watching a news program on ZDF that shows a Ukrainian farmer calmly clearing his fields of unexploded missiles by towing them behind his tractor and piling them up in a corner.

I would not go anywhere near them...

I believe life hasn't been too easy on Ukrainians even before this senseless war and they are used with hardships, especially farmers. You're comparing yourself with people who had to be either resilient or perish. For the Westerners, once the Second World War was over their life has started to gradually improve and these advancements, economical, technological and social progress have lasted and everything was built on top of something. In the East of Europe we didn't enjoy that much comfort along our history. Think of Sisyphus here. Every generation was told they were gonna be the last "sacrificed generation". Oh, well..
I'm still in shock when I think of the mass destructions Ukraine has gone through this war and...it ain't over yet. Let alone all the people who died.

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-russia-talks

Really? There is exactly one who can immediately end this.

Sounds a bit like "peace in our time" talk.

Just curiosity, no old money over there?

Well, a bit of history.



So we can now fix Mr. Roxburgh's opinion peace, this looks much better:

In the end, the decision is in the hands of the people fighting in Ukraine. If they want to fight until the end, lend-lease of weapons only supports them. If they don't want to fight, no matter others do, war is over.

PS. a lot of ink was used during 1941 to tell the Americans were paying he British to the dying part, so no surprises. But another more important thing happened during this lend-lease program: Americans had the incentive to repurpose their manufacturing capacities to war material even if they were NEUTRAL. So, when the bombs fell in Pearl Harbor, war industry was already a well-oiled machine churning out weapons. Roosevelt had already ordered thousands of bombers, fighter airplanes, ships and tanks. If things go awry again, the manufacturing capacities of US will be ready again while they stay NEUTRAL. Well, I shouldn't talk in future tense, the manufacturing capabilities had already been awaken, they're WOKE today (pun intended).

Axa, I am not sure about your Churchill comparison. Without the US landing in Italy and France and taking on the Germans directly, I doubt WWII would have ended the way it did. And Britain was never in the situation Ukraine is in now, with the enemy occupying chunks of it.

The Guardian article of course is a disgrace and effectively suggests the West should offer a partition of Ukraine to reward Putin. It totally negates the sovereignity of Ukraine. Also, it plays to the argument that "inevitably the Russians will win". There are some military experts saying that Ukraine is now close to parity in conventional military power.

But, as the Politico article I posted above shows, indeed there is a large risk of this becoming a forever conflict, at least in the East and South of Ukraine, and Russia seems to have no interest so far in a solution. It may bet on the West losing focus and moving on.

Au contraire, the Channel Islands were occupied for five years, many British cities were bombed and British Malaya including Singapore was invaded.

In Syria, Russia was not facing an organised army with evermore modern weapons, Putin may be ready for a forever conflict but is Russia capable of sustaining that?

This is the part I do not understand.

Russia invaded Crimea on 2014. For several reasons we forgot this conflict and war was happening but even this thread started on 2014. So, there is no risk of this becoming a forever conflict. Even before 24.02.2022, it was already a forever conflict.

Oh I Agree. I wrote this in criticism to the Guardian piece that somehow assumes there can be a negotiated and lasting solution. I think this is an illusion as the history of Ukraine (and also Syria) show. Putin does not want this to be solved unless he wins big. There have been many many "ceasefires" with the Russians, and none have led to peace.

Well Ukraine is in a precarious position as it depends on other countries to finance the war and provide weapons. If these countries get tired of this, they can pull the plug. They were already pushed into signing the Minsk agreements - they shoudl be concerned that once the impact on prices and energy hits voters in Europe, there may be more calls questioning why we should be getting involved in Ukraine.

Hey, it looks like the same guy from a video you shared:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Pic...Zelenskyy-aide

doesn't seem that realistic though...

i agree with this idea, but the men don't in ukraine don't get to choose whether they fight of not as they are conscripted.

We know for sure that when men don't want to fight, they somehow find a way to avoid the draft. Just look at the stats of immigrants from Syria and Eritrea.

Are Ukrainians less able or less willing to avoid the draft?

im not sure. though it seems that if so many men wanted to fight then they wouldn't need to force them to stay.

I'm really not sure what your point is?

Are you trying to say that Ukrainian men would prefer to live under Russia's rule than to fight for their country?

Putin To Undergo Cancer Treatment, Hand Over Power, Claims US Media Report
Vladimir Putin Health: Questions over the Russian President's health have been raised in recent weeks, especially after he was seen tightly gripping a desk during his meeting with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu last month.

Source

Not that I have much confidence in the NY Post. But yikes, Patrushev. Then again, it was unlikely he would hand over to Nawalny.