Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 208 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,781
1,386
126
State of Kentucky's Teachers Retirement System was the second-largest shareholder for Sberbank of Russia (The largest bank in Russia). Their position dropped 95% in value from $13MM to $778K

Dig, the senators from Kentucky are Moscow Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. :rolleyes:

Some chickens just came home to roost, or should I say flew the coop?

It has been reported they sold their shares last month...took a $2M loss but still better than if they had held on to it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
Talking like that to John Daly, bragging about his association with Vlad Putin, makes Trump out not just a lunatic but an epic fool.

So basically a loser and notorious golf cheat trying to impress a former pro with name dropping. Yeah, that's pathetic.

He's like a shitty little kid that never got any parenting, one that now isn't getting enough attention. No one goes to his rallies anymore, waaaaaaaaa
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,404
8,038
136
So basically a loser and notorious golf cheat trying to impress a former pro with name dropping. Yeah, that's pathetic.

He's like a shitty little kid that never got any parenting, one that now isn't getting enough attention. No one goes to his rallies anymore, waaaaaaaaa
Just as pathetic is that Trumpie seemed completely unaware of how he was boring Daly. As if Daly gave a shit about that stuff. I wonder if trump's doing drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Number1

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,627
3,014
136
Just as pathetic is that Trumpie seemed completely unaware of how he was boring Daly. As if Daly gave a shit about that stuff. I wonder if trump's doing drugs.

i see it as a washed up former pro golfer and alcoholic feeling important because a washed up former President will give him the time of day.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,681
11,024
136
I'm a smartass and can't resist a tongue in cheek play on words. We do that here.

If I wanted to insult you I'd just tell you to eat a dick.

There just ain't nuthin like a bag of Dicks...

dicks5-630x473.jpg
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
My thought is one or more of the following:
1) accept annexation of crimea.
2) some sort of special status for the breakaway regions, maybe up to acknowledging their independence.
3) promise not to join NATO.
4) promise some sort of permanent neutral status.

None of those options is great but it seems like the other option is the balls out one where Russia likely conquers Ukraine and then fights a bloody insurgency for years. Maybe in the end Ukraine wins that way but at what cost?
I've been thinking about it more. I don't see how you convince Ukraine to accept that. Additionally, and maybe this doesn't matter especially since it's just my opinion, it seems like an immoral compromise. Giving the bully anything seems like a really bad precident to set.

Of course, it is Ukraine's decision to make, they are the ones suffering and I don't think any rational person would fault them for taking that deal to put a swift end to all this and attempt to get back to normal.

They just don't strike me as a people that would be willing to accept that at this point, and they deserve way better, but how do they achieve it? I've gone over it quite a few times since it became apparent to me on day 2 that Russia has been exposed as a paper tiger. Someone needs to throw Putin a realistic lifeline and it ain't going to be easy and it ain't going to be anything Putin is going to be happy about. Putin is in no position to demand anything, and he needs to be made to see that, if it's at all possible. That's a huge if.

However, if he doesn't recognize it soon this is going to go one of 4 general ways as I can see it, from worst to best case scenario:

1) Nukes fly. Putin knows he can't live with this failure so he decides to take everyone down with him. People around him either try to stop him and fail or are on board because they know they're just as fucked as he is. I don't know the mechanics on how many points of failure there would be to prevent his launch. For all I know it's a keystroke away for him at all times. Maybe there are tons of people that need to turn keys. Doesn't matter, just saying this would be worst case scenario no matter how unlikely or likely it may be.

2) Putin razes Ukraine until every last Russian soldier is dead or captured and Russia is left isolated like NK until Putin is dead.

3) Putin abandons this disaster because he realizes it's not sustainable and he literally cannot accomplish what he set out to do. Russia is still left isolated until Putin is dead, but maybe we gradually lift sanctions to at least allow his people to eat in exchange for leaving Ukraine alone.

4) Putin is removed from power. Either because of his failure or because he tries to launch and is stopped like you think is likely in that scenario or one of a hundred other ways, most of which also result in his death.

That's it. Those are his options without Ukrainian capitulation, which I honestly think is more unlikely than any of the above. He's really painted himself into a corner. 99 out of every 100 ways this can go end with his death, and the last 1 of each 100 end with him living with this humiliation for the rest of whatever life he has.

However, if he CAN be made to face that reality, now the door is cracked to offer him that lifeline that he needs to maybe survive, if that's even what he wants. The only lifeline that makes sense is convincing him that if he wants to live, playtime is over. You've shown the world your military is a fucking joke. You will cease all espionage. If Crimea and/or these other regions of Ukraine slip away from you and return to Ukraine as a result, you will accept that outcome. We will all return to a path of nuclear disarmament. You will allow your country to fairly elect a leader asap. You will take your money and live out the rest of your life in retirement wherever. Russia will pay restitution for every bit of damage, including a whole bunch for the loss of life. In exchange for these concessions we will immediately lift all sanctions in an attempt to salvage Russia's economy before it's too late to be able to even make good on reparations. The second you break any of these conditions all the sanctions slam back into place until you are removed from power by your own people. If we even THINK you've committed more espionage, whether it be poisoning or hacking or whatever else, sanctions until you are dead. There is no further bargaining, take it or leave it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Pens1566

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Maybe we should have pushed for more severe sanctions when Putin took Crimea. This is the exact same thing that happened in 1938. Hitler took the Sudatenland, and the west appeased him by accepting assurances that he had no further military ambitions. Then a year later he takes the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland. This is history repeating itself. This is why we're supposed to study history.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,537
2,834
136
Exactly why I'd argue NATO got involved now instead of later.
1) this is a hell of a gamble but nuclear missiles are a different beast in terms of maintenance. Putin can't even keep tires on trucks...did they really maintain their birds? I'm skeptical.

2) regardless, the threat of nuclear war will be omnipresent so better to confront him know than after he's committed genocide and tried to push into other countries. Appeasement doesn't work.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
My thought is one or more of the following:
1) accept annexation of crimea.
2) some sort of special status for the breakaway regions, maybe up to acknowledging their independence.
3) promise not to join NATO.
4) promise some sort of permanent neutral status.

None of those options is great but it seems like the other option is the balls out one where Russia likely conquers Ukraine and then fights a bloody insurgency for years. Maybe in the end Ukraine wins that way but at what cost?


I can't see Russia managing to put down such an insurgency. I don't think they have that kind of manpower any more. It would be both horrific for everyone in the region, and an ongoing potential spark for WW3.

My impression is still that it's not going terribly well (from the Russian perspective). Though as I recall NATO's attack on Serbia didn't get off to an impressive start, but still got there in the end.

I think Putin is, if only in his head, attempting to mirror that war...He's doing now what he _perceived_ NATO as doing then - using local secessionists as a lever to redraw national boundaries and to bring about 'regime change' in the country attacked. He's even copying specific details, like blowing up TV stations. I suspect he's been learning lessons (albeit filtered through his own distorted perspective) from NATO's post-cold-war regime-change antics, and now he's trying to put them into effect. Neo-liberals helped bring him to power, with their promotion of economic shock-therapy, and then the neo-cons did their bit by doing all they could to humiliate Russia and make Russians feel under threat, and now he's trying to copy those neo-cons. This is his neo-con tribute act.

Even if he manages to take over Ukraine, it won't be Russia's Kosovo, it will far more likely go the same way Afghanistan or Iraq did for the US and NATO - an interminable quagmire followed by humiliating withdrawal. Or maybe it'll be Libya and end up as a failed-state and all-round disaster. So obviously he hasn't learned the right lessons - that the neo-con project was mostly an abject failure.

I can't understand what the Russians think they are doing with this. The best I can guess is they don't want to conquer Ukraine, just to smash it up and and make it clear they can invade it at will and that it can't be a normal country.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Maybe we should have pushed for more severe sanctions when Putin took Crimea. This is the exact same thing that happened in 1938. Hitler took the Sudatenland, and the west appeased him by accepting assurances that he had no further military ambitions. Then a year later he takes the rest of Czechoslovakia, then Poland. This is history repeating itself. This is why we're supposed to study history.

This is why 'studying history' never works. People always draw the wrong parallels and learn the wrong lessons and try to refight the last war. Every single unecessary conflict since 1945 the West has gotten into by comparing it to 1938 and declaring any attempt to avoid it is 'appeasement'. Just as in 1938 they were trying to learn from 1914. If we now bring about WW3 due to yet another misguided attempt to "learn from history" that would be entirely typical.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Exactly why I'd argue NATO got involved now instead of later.
1) this is a hell of a gamble but nuclear missiles are a different beast in terms of maintenance. Putin can't even keep tires on trucks...did they really maintain their birds? I'm skeptical.

2) regardless, the threat of nuclear war will be omnipresent so better to confront him know than after he's committed genocide and tried to push into other countries. Appeasement doesn't work.
I bet at least a few of their missiles work and that’s all you need to cause a Holocaust.

I understand and respect the world’s indignation at Russia’s invasion but people are getting crazy when they think we should go to war with a nuclear power.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,537
2,834
136
I agree, certainly in principle...but what happens when you game that out? He just has to threaten nuclear response and the rest of the world is paralyzed? Thats a hell of a bluff.

And if he's not bluffing, then what? We foment the rise of despotic autocrats?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Exactly why I'd argue NATO got involved now instead of later.
1) this is a hell of a gamble but nuclear missiles are a different beast in terms of maintenance. Putin can't even keep tires on trucks...did they really maintain their birds? I'm skeptical.

2) regardless, the threat of nuclear war will be omnipresent so better to confront him know than after he's committed genocide and tried to push into other countries. Appeasement doesn't work.


Easier to gamble like that (almost literal "Russian routlette") when you are thousands of miles away in a large and sparsely-populated country.

Particularly irritating when your country did so much to create this problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
I agree, certainly in principle...but what happens when you game that out? He just has to threaten nuclear response and the rest of the world is paralyzed? Thats a hell of a bluff.

And if he's not bluffing, then what? We foment the rise of despotic autocrats?
Yep thats my line of reasoning as well.
I am obviously not advocating for a scorched earth… But I am advocating for lets examine the actual odds.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
they will have to conserve ammo/fuel/food within Ukraine


I don't think the Russian soldiers were expecting these kind of protests

The damage this is doing in the motherland must be astronomical, even with the NK like iron grip on media, some Russians must be going like, wait, there is free Russians right next door? And they are fighting to the death for… Freedom?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and KMFJD

Racan

Golden Member
Sep 22, 2012
1,101
1,969
136
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,006
12,075
146
they will have to conserve ammo/fuel/food within Ukraine
That's not going to cut the mustard. They are already getting pushed back handedly in many fronts, if they start 'conserving' it's going to quickly turn into a rout, then a bloodbath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD