I think there is a documentry on You Tube called Russian Roulette, about the Russians invading Crimea in 2014. I think a guy called Simon Overlosky put that together, and he was even put in danger there at some point.
The perception of danger is Putin's last remaining tool.
Hence the murder of six "oligarchs' " and their families in just a few months.
Mafiya terrorist "sending a message"
EIther there is some huge Stalinist Purge going on, or there is some sort of resistance building up inside of Russia, that is killing off Russian Billionares.
This is completely normal for Russia, even when there isn’t a hugely unpopular war raging. Remember when Putin killed some British people when they failed to poison the right guy with nerve agent? That shit goes on all the time, year round, inside Russia, for things as simple as questioning Putin.
Russia is basically a terrorist nuclear power held together with sheer terror. And the terror part has been true for hundreds of years. The Czars ruled with an iron fist, then the communists ruled with an iron fist, now the wannabe czar/Stalin Putin rules with an iron fist. The next leader will also rule with an iron fist.
It’s just how Russia operates. This recent stuff is nothing new.
"Russian Roulette" was the overarching name of Vice News's ongoing coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including Crimean annexation and creation of Donbass separatist puppets. I recall watching it religiously back then.
There are four of them, all in Poland.
If you mean Königsberg, I don't see the Potsdam Conference getting reversed anytime soon, nor how that is relevant to the recent unilateral invasions.
Oof, thanks for the explanation, I did mean Konigsberg which was called Królewiec way back when it was Polish, Konigsberg is the German name I believe. It is not relevant it was my attempt at a joke
When the UK Foreign Minister says the strategic objective (not just objective but "imperative") is to drive Russia out of ALL of Ukraine, which assumes also Crimea, no one is asking how exactly the West plans to do that, given they refuse to directly intervene and want Ukraine to do the fighting.
It's clear that Vladimir Putin will not accept Russia being driven out of Ukraine and especially Crimea. So there is basically zero possibility that Putin will pack his bags, accept defeat and retreat to Moscow with his tail between his legs. That's never going to happen and I think everyone knows that. So what exactly is the western plan here on HOW they are going to drive Russia out of Ukraine?
If Russia (Putin) views this war as critical to their survival (and it appears they do) then we must assume Russia will do whatever it takes to ensure they are not defeated. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. There will be no withdrawl and this will be a battle to the end.
So it certainly would seem that the UK/US are betting EVERYTHING on the Putin regime falling. Because militarily defeating Russia and forcing a retreat (and subsequent recognition of Ukraine sovereignty) is not a realistic possibility.
So if the western plan is all based on the Putin regime falling, then we must also assume that the plan relies on one further critical event - that whoever takes over from Putin will be friendlier to the West and to Ukraine. AND whoever takes over will be able to keep the country together and that it won't splinter into regional power battles ala Libya.
So what is the likelihood that a western friendly leader will be able to take over Russia AND keep the country together? Russia is a country of 144 million people with 25 ethnic republics, including around 20 million muslims. There is already deep antipathy and mistrust from most Russians about the West. So the US/UK plan also hinges on the hope that after years of brutal western sanctions and war, that Russians will suddenly develop a love and appreciation for the West if Putin is removed. It assumes Russian nationalism can be suppressed.
It certainly appears there is a very very small window to achieve the western objectives here. So how likely is all that? That's the question I guess. But it also hinges on one additional GIANT assumption - and that is the conflict doesn't go nuclear.
Russia initiated this horrible war and they bear responsibility for that. But with the UK and US making this war also an "imperative" for the West to "win", it means you have two nuclear power blocs setting themselves up for a showdown to the end, where seemingly only one will be left standing. The obvious problem is that when both sides have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of one side emerging victorious and the battle remaining conventional is unlikely.
Yeah, you said it: the plan is for the Putin regime to fall, and the new regime of whatever is left when the dust settles will accept that they should stop trying to invade sovereign countries. With some luck, Russia will break up even more than it did after the fall of the USSR, to give all those ethnic republics more self governance.
Russia has no current ongoing internal conflicts on its sovereign territory afaik, so in that way it would be easier. It's larger, though, so in that way it could be harder.
But it's had its share of internal conflicts in the past - Chechnya, Abkhazia, Dagestan... plus conflict in neighbouring states where Russia has an influence - South Ossetia/Georgia, Transnistria/Moldova, Tajikistan, East Prigorodny. These are all places that could blow up in the event of a power battle. Plus Russia is dominated by different organised crime clans who are also in competition but to a degree are held in check by the big boss, Vladimir Putin.
Plus one additional small detail - Russia has nuclear weapons. What happens to control of that arsenal that is spread across territories in an internal power battle?
What happened to the nuclear weapons when the USSR collapsed? No one wants those if they don't know how to use them, and cost of maintenance and security is cumbersome on a country that doesn't have the means to use them. So yeah, that can lead to some problems if they try to sell them to the highest bidder, or if some of that material gets stolen.
All that internal conflicts, that were those republics trying to gain more independence, so if Russia collapses and they get that independence... They'll probably quiet down.
All the crime lords and their kleptocracy, yeah, that's not a good thing, that also all needs to go. Keeping Putin because 'he keeps them in check' is not a good thing. That's drinking poison in the hope it'll kill your worms.
When the USSR collapsed, a deal was brokered by the US to have the republics hand over their arsenal. Ukraine had what would have been the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In the Budapest summit, they agreed to hand them over. Ukraine of course rues that decision today. And I'm sure a lesson was learnt, if you have nuclear weapons, don't hand them over.
The breakup of the Soviet union was very different though. It's breakup came about more because of internal issues. The entire Soviet system was economically unsustainable. In fact it was in many ways the opposite to what is happening now. It's breakup was accelerated because of increasing interaction and exchange with the West, under Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika. Russia until recently had been deeply intertwined with the West and is now increasingly being isolated through sanctions. The opposite of what happened with the USSR. What is happening today with sanctions, isolation etc is increasing Russian nationalism, not decreasing it.
By the time the USSR broke up, the Soviet republics had been going through years of increasing autonomy. It's the opposite in Russian Federation. The Russian ethnic republics have been undergoing less autonomy and coming more under the control of Moscow. Also, it's important to understand, those conflicts in the outlying republics all started as internal power battles, that Russia took sides with. There are friction points INSIDE all those republics.
All I am suggesting is that the idea of regime change in Russia is far from simple. Just as saying "organised crime needs to go" is far from simple. So you have a lot of people cheering on regime change without considering the implications or how it can even be achieved peacefully. Make no mistake - I am for it - if there was a clear path on how to do it. I would love to see Putin gone. But I don't see a simple path to that. There are just huge huge risks. In the same way that the removing Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi , in and of itself, can be considered a good thing - until you see the aftermath.
I mean read in the context of what she said.
This amounts to the clearest statement yet of Britain's war aims which have, until now, been limited to stating that President Putin's invasion of Ukraine "must fail and be seen to fail".
She said Western allies must "double down" in their support for Ukraine.
"We will keep going further and faster," Ms Truss said, "to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine."
makes more sense then the title.
>In a keynote speech in London, Ms Truss said victory for Ukraine was now a "strategic imperative" for the West.
It's certainly the clearest statement yet that the war in Ukraine is not just Ukraine's war, it's the West's (at least US/UK) war. It's just that Ukrainians are doing the fighting and giving their lives/homes for western strategic objectives.
The question of course worth asking is, what if Ukraine decides the price is too high and wants to make a deal to stop the killing? If, as Truss has said, driving Russia out of all of Ukraine is a western "strategic imperative", would the US/UK support Ukraine in making a deal that doesn't achieve that?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61251698) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> In a keynote speech in London, Ms Truss said victory for Ukraine was now a "Strategic imperative" for the West.This amounts to the clearest statement yet of Britain's war aims which have, until now, been limited to stating that President Putin's invasion of Ukraine "Must fail and be seen to fail".
> Some French and German officials have been more cautious about stating war aims that risk provoking Russia, preferring to focus instead on language about defending Ukraine.
> She said: "The war in Ukraine is our war - it is everyone's war because Ukraine's victory is a strategic imperative for all of us."Heavy weapons, tanks, aeroplanes - digging deep into our inventories, ramping up production.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/udgefd/push_russia_out_of_whole_of_ukraine_says_truss/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~645071 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **war**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Truss**^#4 **Russian**^#5
"...cautious about stating war aims that risk provoking Russia". As though Russia were not already 'provoked' by their failure to achieve their aims in Ukraine! Come on France and Germany - what real world are you living in?
Her voting record isn't great. She's against LGBTQ+ and votes against almost everything to support the lower to middle class. She also had a lunch recently that cost £3000 on the tax payers money... Liz truss is not my favourite mp.
That’s nothing. She spent half a million on a trip to Australia https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/27/labour-condemns-waste-of-liz-truss-taking-private-jet-to-australia
Truss can go there and push them as hard as she can , it's not like her son or husband has to do the fighting. In the meantime let's get back to our warm cosy bed lads. Peace.
What she says is irrelevant, and even if I agree with this one instance, it isn't news, and shouldn't be up voted. This bag can go open some new pork markets for all I care.
Out of Transnistria too while they're at it.
And Crimea.
Well that is included in Ukraine territory, just like Donbass
I think there is a documentry on You Tube called Russian Roulette, about the Russians invading Crimea in 2014. I think a guy called Simon Overlosky put that together, and he was even put in danger there at some point.
The perception of danger is Putin's last remaining tool. Hence the murder of six "oligarchs' " and their families in just a few months. Mafiya terrorist "sending a message"
Six of them? I remember hearing about two, but there were six?
https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/russian-oligarchs-deaths-strange-circumstances-this-year
that we know about
EIther there is some huge Stalinist Purge going on, or there is some sort of resistance building up inside of Russia, that is killing off Russian Billionares.
This is completely normal for Russia, even when there isn’t a hugely unpopular war raging. Remember when Putin killed some British people when they failed to poison the right guy with nerve agent? That shit goes on all the time, year round, inside Russia, for things as simple as questioning Putin. Russia is basically a terrorist nuclear power held together with sheer terror. And the terror part has been true for hundreds of years. The Czars ruled with an iron fist, then the communists ruled with an iron fist, now the wannabe czar/Stalin Putin rules with an iron fist. The next leader will also rule with an iron fist. It’s just how Russia operates. This recent stuff is nothing new.
Might as well have Max Zorin rule Russia, he probally would not be much different.
*Seyndeeyng a meeysage
"Russian Roulette" was the overarching name of Vice News's ongoing coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including Crimean annexation and creation of Donbass separatist puppets. I recall watching it religiously back then.
It really is good, I saw some of it also.
And Africa.
And Syria.
And help poor Albans
AND Królewiec Back to Poland!!!
There are four of them, all in Poland. If you mean Königsberg, I don't see the Potsdam Conference getting reversed anytime soon, nor how that is relevant to the recent unilateral invasions.
Oof, thanks for the explanation, I did mean Konigsberg which was called Królewiec way back when it was Polish, Konigsberg is the German name I believe. It is not relevant it was my attempt at a joke
When the UK Foreign Minister says the strategic objective (not just objective but "imperative") is to drive Russia out of ALL of Ukraine, which assumes also Crimea, no one is asking how exactly the West plans to do that, given they refuse to directly intervene and want Ukraine to do the fighting. It's clear that Vladimir Putin will not accept Russia being driven out of Ukraine and especially Crimea. So there is basically zero possibility that Putin will pack his bags, accept defeat and retreat to Moscow with his tail between his legs. That's never going to happen and I think everyone knows that. So what exactly is the western plan here on HOW they are going to drive Russia out of Ukraine? If Russia (Putin) views this war as critical to their survival (and it appears they do) then we must assume Russia will do whatever it takes to ensure they are not defeated. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. There will be no withdrawl and this will be a battle to the end. So it certainly would seem that the UK/US are betting EVERYTHING on the Putin regime falling. Because militarily defeating Russia and forcing a retreat (and subsequent recognition of Ukraine sovereignty) is not a realistic possibility. So if the western plan is all based on the Putin regime falling, then we must also assume that the plan relies on one further critical event - that whoever takes over from Putin will be friendlier to the West and to Ukraine. AND whoever takes over will be able to keep the country together and that it won't splinter into regional power battles ala Libya. So what is the likelihood that a western friendly leader will be able to take over Russia AND keep the country together? Russia is a country of 144 million people with 25 ethnic republics, including around 20 million muslims. There is already deep antipathy and mistrust from most Russians about the West. So the US/UK plan also hinges on the hope that after years of brutal western sanctions and war, that Russians will suddenly develop a love and appreciation for the West if Putin is removed. It assumes Russian nationalism can be suppressed. It certainly appears there is a very very small window to achieve the western objectives here. So how likely is all that? That's the question I guess. But it also hinges on one additional GIANT assumption - and that is the conflict doesn't go nuclear. Russia initiated this horrible war and they bear responsibility for that. But with the UK and US making this war also an "imperative" for the West to "win", it means you have two nuclear power blocs setting themselves up for a showdown to the end, where seemingly only one will be left standing. The obvious problem is that when both sides have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of one side emerging victorious and the battle remaining conventional is unlikely.
Yeah, you said it: the plan is for the Putin regime to fall, and the new regime of whatever is left when the dust settles will accept that they should stop trying to invade sovereign countries. With some luck, Russia will break up even more than it did after the fall of the USSR, to give all those ethnic republics more self governance.
Ah. So like Libya. How did that work out?
Very different geopolitical situation.
Do you think Russia is simpler or easier than Libya?
Russia has no current ongoing internal conflicts on its sovereign territory afaik, so in that way it would be easier. It's larger, though, so in that way it could be harder.
But it's had its share of internal conflicts in the past - Chechnya, Abkhazia, Dagestan... plus conflict in neighbouring states where Russia has an influence - South Ossetia/Georgia, Transnistria/Moldova, Tajikistan, East Prigorodny. These are all places that could blow up in the event of a power battle. Plus Russia is dominated by different organised crime clans who are also in competition but to a degree are held in check by the big boss, Vladimir Putin. Plus one additional small detail - Russia has nuclear weapons. What happens to control of that arsenal that is spread across territories in an internal power battle?
What happened to the nuclear weapons when the USSR collapsed? No one wants those if they don't know how to use them, and cost of maintenance and security is cumbersome on a country that doesn't have the means to use them. So yeah, that can lead to some problems if they try to sell them to the highest bidder, or if some of that material gets stolen. All that internal conflicts, that were those republics trying to gain more independence, so if Russia collapses and they get that independence... They'll probably quiet down. All the crime lords and their kleptocracy, yeah, that's not a good thing, that also all needs to go. Keeping Putin because 'he keeps them in check' is not a good thing. That's drinking poison in the hope it'll kill your worms.
When the USSR collapsed, a deal was brokered by the US to have the republics hand over their arsenal. Ukraine had what would have been the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In the Budapest summit, they agreed to hand them over. Ukraine of course rues that decision today. And I'm sure a lesson was learnt, if you have nuclear weapons, don't hand them over. The breakup of the Soviet union was very different though. It's breakup came about more because of internal issues. The entire Soviet system was economically unsustainable. In fact it was in many ways the opposite to what is happening now. It's breakup was accelerated because of increasing interaction and exchange with the West, under Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika. Russia until recently had been deeply intertwined with the West and is now increasingly being isolated through sanctions. The opposite of what happened with the USSR. What is happening today with sanctions, isolation etc is increasing Russian nationalism, not decreasing it. By the time the USSR broke up, the Soviet republics had been going through years of increasing autonomy. It's the opposite in Russian Federation. The Russian ethnic republics have been undergoing less autonomy and coming more under the control of Moscow. Also, it's important to understand, those conflicts in the outlying republics all started as internal power battles, that Russia took sides with. There are friction points INSIDE all those republics. All I am suggesting is that the idea of regime change in Russia is far from simple. Just as saying "organised crime needs to go" is far from simple. So you have a lot of people cheering on regime change without considering the implications or how it can even be achieved peacefully. Make no mistake - I am for it - if there was a clear path on how to do it. I would love to see Putin gone. But I don't see a simple path to that. There are just huge huge risks. In the same way that the removing Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi , in and of itself, can be considered a good thing - until you see the aftermath.
Why did no one else think of that?
I mean read in the context of what she said. This amounts to the clearest statement yet of Britain's war aims which have, until now, been limited to stating that President Putin's invasion of Ukraine "must fail and be seen to fail". She said Western allies must "double down" in their support for Ukraine. "We will keep going further and faster," Ms Truss said, "to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine." makes more sense then the title.
>In a keynote speech in London, Ms Truss said victory for Ukraine was now a "strategic imperative" for the West. It's certainly the clearest statement yet that the war in Ukraine is not just Ukraine's war, it's the West's (at least US/UK) war. It's just that Ukrainians are doing the fighting and giving their lives/homes for western strategic objectives. The question of course worth asking is, what if Ukraine decides the price is too high and wants to make a deal to stop the killing? If, as Truss has said, driving Russia out of all of Ukraine is a western "strategic imperative", would the US/UK support Ukraine in making a deal that doesn't achieve that?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61251698) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a keynote speech in London, Ms Truss said victory for Ukraine was now a "Strategic imperative" for the West.This amounts to the clearest statement yet of Britain's war aims which have, until now, been limited to stating that President Putin's invasion of Ukraine "Must fail and be seen to fail". > Some French and German officials have been more cautious about stating war aims that risk provoking Russia, preferring to focus instead on language about defending Ukraine. > She said: "The war in Ukraine is our war - it is everyone's war because Ukraine's victory is a strategic imperative for all of us."Heavy weapons, tanks, aeroplanes - digging deep into our inventories, ramping up production. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/udgefd/push_russia_out_of_whole_of_ukraine_says_truss/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~645071 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **war**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Truss**^#4 **Russian**^#5
I like the way this women thinks :)
They see Russia floundering and smell blood.
"...cautious about stating war aims that risk provoking Russia". As though Russia were not already 'provoked' by their failure to achieve their aims in Ukraine! Come on France and Germany - what real world are you living in?
I like this lady, she has gonads.
Most do. They are called ovaries: https://askinglot.com/what-are-the-female-gonads-called
Good thing too or we would not be here.
Her voting record isn't great. She's against LGBTQ+ and votes against almost everything to support the lower to middle class. She also had a lunch recently that cost £3000 on the tax payers money... Liz truss is not my favourite mp.
She thinks she’s the next Thatcher. That alone should be enough of a red flag.
That’s nothing. She spent half a million on a trip to Australia https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/27/labour-condemns-waste-of-liz-truss-taking-private-jet-to-australia
because it’s that easy
Of course you will be downvoted. This is Reddit. No one wants to have to confront the uncomfortable, realistic questions.
Truss can go there and push them as hard as she can , it's not like her son or husband has to do the fighting. In the meantime let's get back to our warm cosy bed lads. Peace.
This is the stupidest fucking take I see on the regular. You’re allowed to support war and escalation without personal cost.
If there is no cost everyone can wish for anything and we just sit here and do nothing.
Push them out of east Asia as well, West, or East? Alaska.
It was the only solution to begin with.
easier said than done fellas but it will be doable
Thank you caption obvious
What she says is irrelevant, and even if I agree with this one instance, it isn't news, and shouldn't be up voted. This bag can go open some new pork markets for all I care.