Bironic

I hope that you are right. But I think what is more likely is that whoever succeeds Putin will be similar to him. The only thing that keeps the russian economy going right now is massive spending on weapons production, once this war is over this will come to an end and the economy will implode. So the elites have another interest to keep the war going because presiding over an imploding economy might trigger another russian revolution. Maybe they will try to freeze the conflict, but still increase military production, and move more into a North Korea like state, where the elites reign as Zars and all the economy goes into the military...

I agree, there's also the fact that basically no one in the Soviet Union understood why they had to be in Afghanistan. That was a really hard sell. The idea that Russia has to fight in Ukraine is something that is way more popular and much more easy to sell in Russia, even amongst people that are no fans of Putin. Remember Navalny? he wasn't very keen on giving back Crimea to Ukraine, and he was no fan of Putin. The idea that Russia and Ukraine are basically the same and that russia has to fight for it, makes a lot of sense to your average russian. The idea that Afghanistan is a central part of the socialist world and that the Soviet Union has to fight so that their afghani comrades can achieve communism was very far fetched for the Soviet citizenry. And Putin is no Gorbachev, nor is he afaik as sick as Gorbachevs predecessors, who were basically incapable of governing due to health issues. And the importance of the US can't be overstated. A lot of the most valuable systems (HImars, Atacms, GLSDB, F-16, Patriot, Bradley) are american and the europeans might be able to surpass russian artillery production but in all these other fields such as air defense the Ukrainians need the US. And the simple fact that the republicans who only held the house were capable of withholding aid from october to april, means that if the dems don't win the trifecta in november there will be almost certainly further delays and if they lose the presidency there will be no help at all for 4 years.

My laugh at thinkerx comment was certainly not aimed at the dire situation that Ukraine is in. It’s out of desperation. There just dosen’t seem enough support in key western states for Ukraine. Maithanet has pointed out some points that will give the Ukrainians some room to breathe, starting around June, but depending on the US elections we might actually be in a similar if not worse situation this time next year. And even with all the positive news we got recently (the Czech/Estonian and EU ammo initiatives, the renewed US support, the EU approving using gains from Russian assets to fund Ukraine, Ukraine lowering the conscription age, the F 16) there are still things that are hugely problematic: such as air defense (especially against Russian glide bombs) and the fact that Russia has gotten much better at jamming/spoofing western guided ammo…

I wonder what Patrushevs new role will be, he was considered to be one of Putins closest Allies

Thanks for the clarification! But isn't at least part of a protest trying to win over the general public? (there are other aspects of protest obviously) And the general public is prejudiced... I just wonder if instead of a head scarf they would have worn a rainbow colored peace flag, if that would have made the general public more susceptible to their cause... Call me naive and idealistic, or maybe I do live in a too cozy part of the world; either way I am probably guilty.

Never said anything about threats. I don't think the protesters are threatening me in any way. I actually support their cause. I was (and still am) against an Israeli military intervention in Gaza. I am against war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am against Police crackdown of peaceful protests.

This is definitely the case in some countries. In those countries I am obviously not against it. In regards to the USA, i really can't tell, they seem to have history of police brutality, etc. so probably a mixed bag. In my country, I am against it, the only ones (I know some of them personally) do it because they're violent... I know that's a palestinian head scarf, have seen enough pictures of Arafat wearing one (Forgot the name though, thanks). Does the general public know that? No. If you wear it a lot of people will associate you with some sort of Islamism, not exactly something that is popular amongst the very people you want to convince to stop supporting Netanyahus brutal government... Confused them apparently, my bad. Are they not similar?

Disclaimer: I have just seen the cover and not the article itself. I like non-violent protest, think it’s an important and effective tool and regularly take part in them. I haven’t really followed the protests in the USA, since I am neither a student nor do i live there, but as a general feeling I would be more pro-protesters and against police intervention. I don’t want to offend anyone, since this seems to be a divisive topic. I agree that the protesters look as you said „cool as hell“, but for me and I think I am probably not the only one also somewhat frightening and not in a positive way. I will try to explain why: generally not a fan of protesters that are somewhat masked ( in a protest you should be open about your opinion and person), what do you have to hide? second in this case the mask is also a religious symbol that imho suppresses women ( if you wear them all the time because that’s your personal belief ok, but to wear them just for a protest it’s different), finally the victory sign combined with the traditional Palestinian headscarf: what exactly would this victory be? I hope it’s an end to the violence, but imho it doesn’t come across as that…

Does Russia have spare men to „calm“ the situation in Georgia? Do you think it is possible? How would the Georgian military react to such a thing, I mean they fought against Russia in 2008 and at least parts of them in 1991-1993…there is also a substantial group of Georgian volunteers in Ukraine, they would probably want to go back to Georgia in such a scenario. And I doubt that the Georgian population would welcome a 3-day special military operation…

A cargo Boeing 767 by fedex has made a controlled belly landing in Istanbul…

WTF? Seriously where do you get your news from? Or do you consume them while being high? I don’t even know where to start to rebuke this insanity… The EU doesn’t have an army. There‘s no proof whatsoever that France deploys troops to Ukraine, nor has Ukraine asked for that. Ukraine is not winning on the battlefield, due to lack of weapons, ammo and manpower. NATO is a defensive alliance. Odessa is not in Russian hands. Crimea and the Kerch bridge have been under attack since the start of the conflict. Why does China need to step in? How would they broker such a peace deal? According to your other posts, probably with a single phone call…\irony

That must have been a big part... and one fat, full worm...

Maybe the international extremist hotline? but then you would probably go directly to voicemail, since the guys operating it are busy at fucking up the world 24/7... #sarcasm The American revolution was (at least partially) violent and a war.. there's no need to fight a war or make a violent Anti-UN revolution... it can be reformed by peaceful means as well... The reason why Veto exists in the UNSC was because in the previous iteration, the League of Nation council, the countries that were part of a conflict did not have the right to vote and thus no Veto power and the only thing that achieved was that all the countries that had a ruling against them (Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR) simply left the League of Nations robbing it of its function as a forum where you can meet, discuss and negotiate peacefully with everyone. And leaving it with little to no international power, legitimacy or usefulness. If you would abolish the current veto power now, China and Russia would simply build their own Anti-UN (where they would have Veto power), which would basically end the UN as an international forum for peaceful negotiations and diplomacy. And no diplomacy is always worse and more risky than having diplomatic channels open even when a lot of conflicts are blocked because of the power of veto. The idea of reform of the UN is basically more levied towards making veto less powerful (there are multiple ideas in various directions that I won't explain in detail here since that would take up too much space) and not by completely abolishing it. Do I think that this is very likely to happen? No... but times change. Putin, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump etc. are all mortal men and there is the chance that they will be replaced by people that are more open to reform. When the UN was created Stalin was the head of the USSR, 40 years later it was Gorbachev... The opposite is also possible, that they will be replaced by even crazier people, but then we might edge towards your solution, meaning that we will see a WW3/violent revolution and however that ends the UN in it's current form will most likely not survive it. Agreed

He still values loyalty over competence. But he also tries to prevent any single member/faction in his regime from becoming powerful enough to be a threat to himself. So it will be interesting who will be rewarded and whose influence will be reduced. Prigozhins fall last year increased the power of the military, while the recent terror attack decreased the power of the FSB, otoh the guys who ran the re-election have to be rewarded somehow…

There’s also the possibility of reform of the UN. Not super likely at the moment but definitely on the table.