“We have 300 alumni. Several of them are with President Zelenskyy in the bunker right now.” Gets dropped in this panel as a concession to “full disclosure”.
Timothy Snyder (see click and click) is on the Panel as well of course, and utters a thank you like a polite young scientist.
Panel discussion is drop dead boring. They develop the theory, that every minor goal we attributed to Putin potentially having, is a false interpretation, instead russia would be on an “annex and ‘denazification’ ” mission, “just like Putin said in his rambling hour long speech”. In fact those would have been the only clear points he made in that speech (not even while stating, that this would have been russias goal all along, they can refrain from adding the ‘Crazy Putin’ qualifier on top). Now as they cant let that stand (essentially, four experts saying, that Putin announced his ‘mission’ in the first speech he made), Russias real goal now becomes - and doing that with the entire Ukraine, which they never “admitted”. Which is not that likely, unless Russia plans to aim for general mobilization in the next two years or so.
There is a section in the “cleansing” paper published by the former russian election adviser where he assumes that the assimilation process (not the cleansing, which is killing military leaders) would take 25 years, or one entire generation.
So for russia to follow that plan, just made up by that panel, they’d need about 4 million people in the Ukraine for the entirety of 25 years, while the Ukrainians would engage in guerrilla warfare? Because the russians would have “won”. (Occupied the entirety of Ukraine.)
Hey - we know that you would like nothing more than a new vietnam scenario russia gets overextended in, but I can not, under any circumstance believe, that this would be THE scenario russia is favoring over all others. Dear Stanford guys with ukrainian leadership programs.
Just on the process level - those guys now have made the following jumps in regards to operative logic.
1. Putin was entirely mad
to
2. Everything “sensible” he had said in the rambling speech, which wasnt much, is true after all
to
3. And he wants the one thing, that will definitely ensure that russia is locked in and overextended for a 25 year period
to
4. Because a RIA propaganda piece told us the part again, we now believe in (annex and ‘denazify’). [But that piece interestingly also includes a section, where there would be an unoccupied western Ukraine, that (in the russian PR forward messaging), would have to be neutral. Which is not what Putin wants. He wants, 25 years of occupying Ukraine, with roughly four million people.]
And because of that, nothing more than an enduring war of attrition can be accepted, because we fear, that with a peace deal honoring these positions, Putin would be encouraged to try to annex the entirety of Ukraine again, after a few years. So we send more people to die sooner, to demotivate them to potentially lose more people later.
This logic ist stellar. In the minds of all the people constructing the western narrative here.
Just as we can not go into real peace negotiations now, because the people in the occupied territories would suffer russian ‘reeducation’ and de-democratization strategies. That was the argument used to get the media on track to support a 2-5 year long war. (See click)
This logic also is stellar. Just with the slight flaw, that it was from the very beginning, and the russians retreating completely is the first step you need before you’d engage peace negotiations. So if that (de-democratization and ‘denazification’ (in the russian propaganda sense)) was the outcome you always had to prevent, why did you engage in peace negotiations at all?
And just at that point, when the entire public narrative, is so completely idiotic, that no one in their right mind, can even tentatively ponder believing it - you invite Anton Hofreiter. 🙂
“Kohlestrom und autofreie Sonntage! - Jetzt müssen wir Führungsstärke zeigen.”
