They threw Rasputin into the Malaya Nevka, not the Moskva. You guessed it - St. Petersburg.
Couple of additional crypto guys died besides the guy in post 814.
"Damn, being a Russian crypto bro sure is a dangerous occupation.
Entrepreneur Vyacheslav Taran, 53, died after the helicopter plunged near the resort town of Villefranche-sur-Mer after taking off from Lausanne in Switzerland.
Taran is the third cryptocurrency entrepreneur to die unexpectedly in the past few weeks.
Tiantian Kullander, 30, died ‘in his sleep’ last week, while fellow crypto millionaire Nikolai Mushegian, 29, drowned on a Puerto Rico beach after tweeting that he feared the CIA and Mossad were going to murder him."
Not sure if the CIA and/or Mossad should be the prime suspects???
I’m betting somebody powerful lost a lot of money in the recent FTX crash, and is looking for someone to blame.
That article does not really give an alternative. I mean, it kinda does:
- Putin dies
- Ukraine is defeated and surrenders.
We can hope for #1, but #2 would be a disaster for Europe and even the world. His objections for various peace concessions make sense, but his alternatives, such as they are- are worse. The author admits that a #3- Ukraine conquers Russia is impossible.
Crimea is already lost, has been so for a while. The only other way for the war to end is to give Putin some sort of concession so he can claim victory.
So those insisting Ukraine not negotiate are either condemning Ukraine to lose or hoping Putin dies. There are no other choices other than negotiation. Sure, I can hope for no more Putin either, but that is hardly the way to plan long term strategy.
Excepting Crimea, this is what I think will happen.
A Ukrainian victory** is certainly on the table, and IMHO still the most likely outcome as long as the west continues to support Ukraine.
The problem with offering Putin some kind of “concession” and the whole point of the piece, is that the only thing Putin will accept at this point (not what claims he will accept in some sham negotiations, but what he would actually accept in reality) is a genocide of the Ukrainian people.
** By victory I mean the sort of victory that North Vietnam and Afghanistan / The Taliban had against the US. Obviously an invasion and conquest of Russia proper is out of the question.
Great.
Now find a way to get Russia to negotiate because right now they’re still claiming all of Ukraine as their condition. And probably Zelenskyy’s head on a platter (possibly literally).
Well it’s certainly already occupied, but lost beyond possibility of being recovered seems a bit of an overstatement. Should Ukraine succeed in re-taking southern Zaporizhzhia Oblast towards Melitopol and/or Berdiansk, and then succeed in fully knocking out the Kerch bridge, Russia’s position in Crimea becomes very tenuous. Neither of those preconditions is particularly far-fetched. Not easy, by any means, but comparable to achievements of Ukrainian forces elsewhere over the past few months. In the past couple weeks there have been a lot of reported artillery strikes on HQ and logistics targets in the Tokmak/Polohy region in a manner reminiscent of the periods preceding the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives. It is entirely likely that the Ukrainians will begin a major offensive in that sector once the ground is frozen solid enough to improve mobility. Such an offensive paired with renewed pressure in northern Luhansk (which actually has been ongoing, though very slow in recent weeks due to the mobility issues of mud season) would again force Russia to have to decide on where to allocate resources in the same way that the twin Kharkiv/Kherson offensives did. And given past performance, the Russian decision might well be to undersupply both those fronts in favour of yet more frontal assaults on Bakhmut, which based on the way Russia keeps on attacking must hold the world’s largest underground washing machine storage facility or something.
At that point re-supply of Crimea would be dependent entirely on shipping in an environment where Ukraine has already demonstrated anti-shipping capability by way of sinking the Moskva and a couple other major vessels in the Black Sea Fleet. Even now the logistics in Crimea and southern Kherson & Zaporizhzhia are tough for Russia. The so-called land bridge along the coast does not provide a safe rail corridor from Luhansk, as the only line runs within 155mm range of the front in the vicinity of Vuhledar (likely why the Russians have been launching suicidally ruinous attacks on Pavlivka recently), and the coastal highway which is the alternative is in poor condition for heavy traffic. And also in HIMARS range. And the alternative, the Kerch Bridge, is still not functioning at capacity for either road or rail traffic, meaning that the damage it suffered was much greater than the Russians have admitted.
Finally, Russian problems with supplying equipment and materiel which have been issues all along could well turn critical in the next few months. People who are cold and miserable with inadequate gear when it’s 0C and raining do not fight effectively. People who are cold and miserable with inadequate gear when it’s -20C die of hypothermia, at which point they do not fight at all.
None of this is to say that complete Ukrainian victory (i.e. pushing Russia back to pre-2014 borders) is assured. It assuredly is not. But in view of the way the war has played out so far it is an attainable goal.
Good news: They’ve negotiated. And the result of the negotiations was Russia agreeing that Ukraine would keep Crimea. If negotiations mean anything, then that’s what they mean.
I don’t know if I would suggest Ukraine ever offer Crimea up on a platter for peace. But as I mentioned above (I think - long thread) it is the one area where I could see the wisdom of an international plebiscite under U.N. auspices as part of a peace deal. Because I do think it is the one area where a majority, maybe a significant majority, of the population might well prefer to remain part of Russia. It was the one majority ethnic Russian Ukrainian territory even before the 2014 seizure inspired many Ukrainian to flee and Russians to settle. Past polling has been suggestive of a stronger attachment to Russia than anywhere else in the country.
It is strategically quite valuable to Ukraine, so it might not be something Ukraine is willing to consider either. But a majority restive, hostile population could be a festering sore for the nation (barring morally unpalatable ethnic cleansing). By contrast even the most pro-Russian oblast in the Donbas was majority ( bare majority, but majority) by polling in favor of staying part of the Ukraine prior to the 2014 separatist rebellions.
I don’t disagree with any of that. I was just saying I don’t think it’s some militarily unassailable fortress such that it’s completely unthinkable that Ukraine can force the Russian Army out of it.
It may, at some point, be reasonable for the status of Crimea to be subject to negotiation, or for there to be a fair determination of the will of the people of Crimea. It’s also perfectly reasonable for Ukraine’s opening position to be that Crimea is Ukrainian, because even if they are willing to accept a fair plebiscite they would quite reasonably expect concessions on other points of negotiation in exchange. Like, say, some sort of real security guarantee that Russia won’t be back for another kick at the can in a few years. Perhaps something like Russian acceptance of NATO membership for Ukraine? Because a Russian promise to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity is obviously worth less than nothing, viz. Budapest Memorandum. But these things aren’t really relevant to judging the validity of the proposition that Crimea is irrevocably lost to Ukraine militarily.
Well, and there’s also the possibility that if Ukraine does re-take Crimea, the pro-Russian inhabitants may evacuate like they have from the other areas Ukraine has re-taken.
Do you think Putin will give up? I do not think so- nor did that author of that article. So again, we are back to 1. Putin dies
Sure. And then what happens? Putin gives up? Nope. So again, we are back to 1. Putin dies.
Sure, you always ask for more than you will settle for. But still, that is a negotiated peace, which was claimed to be a Bad Idea.
So again, if there is not a negotiated peace, there are then two options- 1. Putin dies
2. Ukraine is defeated and surrenders.
I think 3. Negotiated peace is more likely. Sure hope for #1, but can we get real?
The implication that I’m reading into your post is that “1. Putin dies” means we’re all waiting around for that cancer or heart attack or whatever to come around in 5 or 10 or 15 years. It could also mean, however, that a revolution takes place and he ends up like Caecescu, Qaddafi, Hussein, etc. In fact my guess is that should Ukraine reclaim all of their territory by conventional means, including Crimea, this is a highly likely outcome for Putin personally.
As far as “3. Negotiated peace.” goes, as I noted, what this really means it’s that Ukraine would be agreeing to their own genocide, if not immediately then a few years down the road.
All plans involve “Putin dies” at some point. But there’s no reason that has to be before Ukraine finishes kicking Russia out of all Ukrainian territory. Including Crimea. At which point the war is over.
Not at all. He could be overthrown, for example.
Let us say that happens- but Putin is still alive and in power. Will he call off the war and not make a counter attack?
If Putin gets a negotiated peace he can call a victory- limited and Pyrrhic it might be- maybe he might stop. I do not think he will stop just because the Ukrainians are kicking his ass. Why should he? Unless taken down, in which case- 1. Putin dies.
And taking back Crimea is not gonna be easy. Remember, Russia still holds quite a bit of “mainland” Ukraine.
How many Ukrainian civilians will Zeleneskyy watch die when the war grinds on to its 3rd year? how long will the gravy train of aid continue?
I don’t see any realistic scenarios where he is overthrown but survives. That doesn’t happen to dictators, especially not ones like Putin. Even if he does survive being overthrown, however, the result is still a new Russian government, presumably one that lacks an interest in committing genocide against Ukrainians.
If he is overthrown, death is likely, but escape to a neutral nation with many Billions can happen.
But in effect, it is still Putin dies, even if he is a toothless exile.
This still doesn’t address the elephant in the room regarding option #3. I think anyone in favor of that option must be sticking their heads in the sand if they think Russia will do anything less than ignore whatever treaty is signed and proceed to restart the war as soon as it is advantageous for them to do so, maybe even sooner than that, with the goal of wiping out Ukraine.
How about restoring Ukraine’s Navy? Obviously the ships and Sevastopol naval base stolen in 2014 are unobtainable.
However, a new naval base with small warships could be established. It would take many years but NATO could sell Ukraine older ships in useful condition.
I thought they have a naval base in Odesa, but that it just lacks any ships. I think they’ve already ordered one that is currently being built in Turkey, something that is basically a small destroyer if IIRC.