AlterEgo
Veteran Member
That is not going to happen.If he is removed in a coup expect it'll be very similar to the way Romania dealt with Ceausescu.
That is not going to happen.If he is removed in a coup expect it'll be very similar to the way Romania dealt with Ceausescu.
As I'm sure Nicolae himself was saying on the 21st of December.That is not going to happen.
Potential of a palace coup and Putin getting the Romanov treatment is so low I don't think it is even a possibility worth discussing.As I'm sure Nicolae himself was saying on the 21st of December.
Potential of a palace coup and Putin getting the Romanov treatment is so low I don't think it is even a possibility worth discussing.
The most likely outcome is a loss of faith in his inner circle and the emergence of an alternative strongman in Russia, with Putin put out to pasture with a hollow political legacy.
Biden promised a few weeks ago that NATO would respond if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine. Now that it seems this has happened, I wonder what NATO’s response will be.
It won't be the first army to be defeated by the weather in that part of the world. Or the second. Or the third.a truly damning weather report?
The Minister has a point about mud but is incorrect about Barbarossa, which didn't commence until 22/6/41 (so wasn't in Spring).Putin’s troops will be ‘easy pickings’ bogged down by Ukraine mud, says defence minister
Putin is believed to be pouring tens of thousands of soldiers into the Donbas after the failure of his lightning invasion plan to seize Kyiv within daysuk.yahoo.com
Today, yes. But how many will be willing to give him a quiet retirement if there is a loss in Ukraine and the sanctions continue to bite? I can definitely see him falling down the stairs a few times.
Let's hope it holds because NATO alternatives may be tangibleIt won't be the first army to be defeated by the weather in that part of the world.
I meant the Russian army would be defeated!Let's hope it holds because NATO alternatives may be tangible
a truly damning weather report?
The Minister has a point about mud but is incorrect about Barbarossa, which didn't commence until 22/6/41 (so wasn't in Spring).
I can see a scenario where post war sanctions on Russia will not be fully lifted until Putin has been removed from power and handed over to the International Criminal Court, making it in their own interests (which realistically is the only reason they support him currently) for the oligarchs to back a coup.
However, experience shows that strict, open-ended sanctions have had limited effect in affecting regime change. Take Cuba and Iran as examples.I would actually go further, and hope that sanctions will remain and continue to be tightened until Russia not only gets out of Ukraine, but also co-operates with whatever international war crimes tribunal is set up, allowing that tribunal access inside Russia to track down all those suspected of war crimes - most particularly including not just Putin and those commanders who ordered the war crimes, but all those ordinary soldiers etc. who have raped, tortured, or murdered defenceless civilians. I would also like to see investigations opened up into similar atrocities that Russia may have committed in Chechnya and Syria, and the question of Russia's occupation of parts of Georgia raised too.
I agree, it's more likely that this will happen. But I maintain that a far better punishment would be for Putin and others to be forced into a realistic and direct encounter with the horrors that they've perpetrated.My post wasn't about what SHOULD happen but what I think WILL happen.
It really has. There were som discussion on social media about that piece of news yesterday in Sweden, and many seem to feel that if that is Putin's opinion, we really need to join Nato.In other news all irony meters around the world have broken beyond repair:
Ukraine War: Russia warns Sweden and Finland against Nato membership
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the move won't bring stability to Europe.www.bbc.co.uk
There was majority support for joining right after the invasion. I can only assume that Russia's actions since since will only have increased that support.And there are rumours that Finland are very close to applying for membership, which means that Sweden will probably apply as well.
However, experience shows that strict, open-ended sanctions have had limited effect in affecting regime change. Take Cuba and Iran as examples.
I do agree that it can't simply be a return to "business as normal" as soon as Russian troops leave Ukraine though. I think it would make sense to ease up on the sanctions that punish the common Russian citizen, and retain and tighten those that target the leadership. And also try our best to slow/prevent them re-arming.
I agree we shouldn't go back to 'business as usual', but my view is that sanctions should be tiered. If we keep them going at their current level because Russia hasn't been apologetic enough, they have no incentive not to resume hostilities. The ultimate purpose of sanctions is a deterrent, and they don't deter anyone from anything whilst applied.
Therefore, I think there should be an immediate and significant drop as soon as there is a cessation of hostilities from Russia, and a further drop for every subsequent year that remains the case (or if the situation changes).
French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen said she broadly supports sanctions against Russia, except when it comes to oil and gas supplies.
The far-right politician will battle Emmanuel Macron for the presidency in a run-off election after obtaining her highest result ever in the first round.
But she has faced criticism for allegedly being too close to Russia amid the war in Ukraine.
"I am perfectly in favour of all the other sanctions," Ms Le Pen said.
In the interview with France Inter Radio, she said: "I do not want French people to suffer the consequences of sanctions" on oil and gas.
France, like many other European countries, imports much of its natural gas through pipelines from Russia, using it for residential and commercial energy.
But Ms Le Pen has been criticised by rivals over her past support for Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
She previously appeared to support Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, and in 2017 called for international sanctions over the issue to be dropped.
In 2014, when Crimea was annexed by Russia, her political party received a loan from a Russian bank with alleged ties to the Kremlin.
Ms Le Pen justified her previous remarks by saying the annexation of Crimea was a different situation to the current invasion of Ukraine, and painted her support for Mr Putin as reflective of her wider ambition for a "multi-polar" world, Reuters reports.
Despite softening her stance on leaving the European Union and other nationalist issues in recent years, she is still widely opposed by most of France's political establishment.
Former president Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, publicly announced on Tuesday that he would vote for his party's rival Emmanuel Macron, and encouraged others to do the same.
It really has. There were som discussion on social media about that piece of news yesterday in Sweden, and many seem to feel that if that is Putin's opinion, we really need to join Nato.
And there are rumours that Finland are very close to applying for membership, which means that Sweden will probably apply as well.
One other thing that's caught my eye: more and more people are outright saying that the Bundeswehr isn't supplying weapons to Ukraine because it simply doesn't have any. The German Defence Minister said that weapons will have to come from the arms industry, which raises a very important question: what the hell has Germany been doing with their military?
Biden promised a few weeks ago that NATO would respond if chemical weapons were used in Ukraine. Now that it seems this has happened, I wonder what NATO’s response will be.
In Sweden the support has not changed that much in the last month. There was a recent poll in which 45% answered yes and 33% no to whether Sweden should join Nato. On the other hand, in late march another poll asked the same question, assuming Finland decided to join Nato. In which case 63% of Swedes would support a membership.There was majority support for joining right after the invasion. I can only assume that Russia's actions since since will only have increased that support.
Finland is a lock-in for membership within a few months. They already cooperate very closely with NATO, and they're more integrated than Sweden is. They also have more urgency than Sweden to get into NATO ASAP. Sweden, I'd expect them to take a little while longer, but I could still see them joining NATO by the end of the year.
Finland is a lock-in for membership within a few months.
With what army?If the Finns attempted to join NATO now, there is a major risk of a pre-emptive Russian strike which could lead to Helsinki resembling Mariupol today.
I don't exactly admire your optimistic assessment of the likely performance of the Russian armed forces in this putative unprovoked invasion of Finland but personally considering their performance in Ukraine so far I'd not rule out the Fins conquering St Petersburg.If the Finns attempted to join NATO now, there is a major risk of a pre-emptive Russian strike which could lead to Helsinki resembling Mariupol today. That would be an avoidable tragedy. Finland has had a modus vivendi with the USSR/Russia since the end of WW2 and it would be foolish to destabilise this arrangement. Unlike Ukraine, Finland is essentially physically separated from the rest of Europe by the Gulf of Bothnia, but has a very long land border with Russia, so is vulnerable to a well-organised Russian attack, as in 1944; once the Finns' military supplies are exhausted, it would be difficult to replenish them from abroad.