After the local elections, where the locals overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia and not being killed…
You mean not being killed by the Russian soldiers going door-to-door securing “join” votes?
1 Like
And your war machine consists of glass panels and propellers. Poor old Bismarck is spinning fast enough to generate electricity from his grave. 
Is this the blind leading the blind? You’re considering this since your ban on Russian fossil fuels worked so well? Sheesh!
I would say that [insert British Statesman here] is spinning in his grave, but there are so many that the island might flip over.
I posted this in another thread on February 18, and it’s exactly what’s happening:
What lies ahead is less obvious 
.
3 Likes
Putin claiming those votes and regions of Ukraine are now Russia, open to negotiations now.
Accurate forecast though me thinks Putin’s initial plan was to annex the whole of Ukraine. He never imagine the resolve of Zelensky and the Ukrainian population to keep their country independent. The special operation had to be redefined to Putin’s chagrin.
1 Like
I suspect he never imagined the skill and accomplishment of the Ukrainian PR effort, and the attachment to those efforts. They have been exceptional in gathering allies.
1 Like
I’m certain they’ll be open to having Jimmy Crater come over to “observe/supervise” the fairness of their elections. 
You say that like it is a bad thing.
But without the resolve to stay during the early days of the conflict, Zelensky would almost certainly not have been able to muster the same level of support that has carried them through to today. Same goes for their military and civilian populations in their resolve to maintain their independence from Russia.
2 Likes
Not difficult at all to gather allies when you’re being invaded for the purpose of a land grab, particularly in Europe.
1 Like
Didn’t Catherine the Great say something like that before? Or was it some other more recent Tsar?
What made is sound like a bad thing?
You’re speaking militarily, right?
Satire, more or less.
“it is our solemn duty, as outlined in the Constitution, to fully fund the Ukrainian government at all times," said Senator Chuck Schumer. “We humbly accept this sacred responsibility to send billions to Ukraine, who will send it to Raytheon, who will send it to super PACs, who will help us get elected. It’s the right thing to do.”
1 Like
That clown meme is a pretty braindead take on the whole situation.
1 Like
Who benefits from the damaged pipeline?
what is far more interesting than the technicalities of the referenda is what the decision to annex these regions says about Russian intentions. Once these regions become formally annexed, they will be viewed by the Russian state as sovereign Russian territory, subject to protection with the full range of Russian capabilities, including (in the most dire and unlikely scenario) nuclear weapons…Those fixating on the “legality” of the referenda (as if such a thing exists) and Medvedev’s supposed nuclear blackmail are missing this point. Russia is telling us where it currently draws the line for its absolute minimum peace conditions
So far in this war, Ukraine has achieved two big successes retaking territory: first in the spring, around Kiev, and now the late summer recapture of Kharkov Oblast. In both cases, the Russians had preemptively hollowed out the sector. We have yet to see a successful Ukrainian offensive against the Russian Army in a defensive posture.
Let’s be frank about this. Russia did not blow up its own pipelines, and it is ludicrous to suggest that they did. The importance of the pipeline to Russia lay in the fact that it could be switched on and off, providing a mechanism for leverage and negotiation vis a vis Germany. In the classic carrot and stick formulation, one cannot move the donkey if the carrot is blown up.
Cui bono? Who benefits? Well, considering Poland celebrated the opening of a new pipeline to Norway only a few days ago, and a certain former Polish MP cryptically thanked the United States on Twitter, it is fair to make a few guesses.
Let us briefly meditate on the actual implications of Nordstream’s demise.
- Germany loses what little autonomy and flexibility it had, making it even more dependent on the United States.
- Russia loses a point of leverage over Europe, reducing the inducements to negotiation.
- Poland and Ukraine become even more critical transit hubs for gas.
Russia clearly perceives this as a bridge burning move of sabotage by NATO, designed to back them into a corner. The Russian government has decried it as an act of “international terrorism” and argued that the explosions occurred in areas “controlled by NATO” - the concatenation of these statements is that they blame NATO for an act of terrorism, without explicitly saying that. This precipitated another meeting of the Russian National Security Council.
1 Like
A cursory Google search shows that Mr. Sachs is highly controversial and inclined to pro-China, and other anti-West views.
1 Like
I know your predilections, and if that’s all your comment is, I understand. However, if you could explain which panels are braindead, or why all of the panels are braindead, I would appreciate it.
While I am all for shedding light on theories, crackpot (Bush in a B2, Trump urinating on a bed) or otherwise, I need a starting point to see where your angle originates.
ETA: And if your comment includes
You say that like it is a bad thing.
Please explain how it sounds like it is a bad thing.