Is that last article really saying what I think it’s saying? WTF?
Some of that uncommon common sense. Total mobilization, if declared, would be a purely political move, since it would not accomplish shit in a military sense. There is no equipment or cadres to form additional units, even if men could be conscripted by the hundreds of thousands. It would just damage the economy even more, by taking them out of the civilian workforce.
He’s rolling the dice, acknowledging reality before knowing what Putin will say on Victory Day.
Never mind the fact, it would take months to train conscripts to be base line competent.
Ukraine just needs to hold out until Russia realizes the war is no longer tenable. Then they can begin the long process to rebuild, which will need the current allies supporting them. Best case scenario, is it invigorates Ukraine and results in it becoming a power in Eastern Europe. Worst case is after the initial support, it languishes to rebuild and takes a decade or longer to recover. Possibly giving rise to new political movements that take advantage of the discontent of post war.
Please elaborate. I’m not sure what you think it is saying.
ETA: https://youtu.be/4g72BjWvUgE
That’s the full address, in German.
poor putin. that writer, michael clarke, must really feel for the guy.
putin could also, you know, stop. that’s always an option.
[ if you expand the quote, you can see mindysan was referring to the guardian article “Surrendering land is not the same as defeat – if a stronger Ukraine emerges…” – there were a few separate posts from gaghalfrunt ]
I think he’s saying that it’s okay if Ukraine gives up land for peace, and in fact would be preferable.
And yes, I am referencing the last article…
Indeed. But a significant number were moved to a different type of harm.
I think this the same, but with subtitles (which can be subjected to the tender mercies of Google Translate)
Of all the nations in the world, Germans should know that appeasement doesn’t work.
The author claims that NOT letting the Russians have Crimea is the REAL appeasement… or so it seems to me.
To be clear, this is the article being discussed.
Shamefully, the Grauniad has been publishing opinion pieces by British journalists that attempt to make “reasonable” sounding arguments for appeasing Putin’s imperialist aspirations (supposedly for the good of Ukraine and world peace).
This other writer, who became a PR shill for the Putin regime, is especially slimy.
Lavrov has repeatedly claimed that Russia has no choice in the matter, and has not yet accepted its own freedom to act.
Thanks. Due to later comments I thought that the Guardian article was inspired by some speech by Scholz.
Yeah, not as far as I know? I’m just referencing the Guardian article…
I understand. I just got confused.
No worries! There’s a lot going on, and it’s all fucking confusing!
