Skip Navigation

‘Putin will spark a third world war if Russia claims victory in Ukraine’: Ukrainian steel magnate Yuriy Ryzhenkov warns of global fallout from the Kremlin’s war

www.telegraph.co.uk ‘Putin will spark a third world war if Russia claims victory in Ukraine’

Ukrainian steel magnate Yuriy Ryzhenkov warns of global fallout from the Kremlin’s war

‘Putin will spark a third world war if Russia claims victory in Ukraine’

Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9202260

Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.

Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.

“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”

131

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
131 comments
  • How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.

    I don't think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

    Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let's move past that.

    • How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election?

      Are you serious ?

      Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.

      Which is the definition of rigged election.

      I don’t think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

      Following your logic, they could also invade Turkey so they could access the Mediterranean Sea. Then they can also invade Alaska, after all having the control of the Bering sea is obviously important. Or US could invade Panama, for the Panama canal, or Spain can seize Gibraltar.

      Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

      Yeah, like they said in 2014.

    • It's a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don't want to die.
      If by any chance you wouldn't be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That's why they showed force.

      I don’t think they should invade those places, no.

      Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?

      Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

      Ah, now I understand. "We need a harbour that's ice free the whole year around." There are some holes in that logic:
      a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That's where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
      So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
      And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?

      Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

      Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
      Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
      Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
      Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.

      Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
      The thing is, we don't know what they are planning. We don't know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
      Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.

      But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It's all a question of time, but I'm not confident enough to say that Russia won't be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.

      • I really don't know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle's port to get to Tacoma's (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It's a very important sea.

        Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don't trust US cops to prevent violence.

        It's not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren't obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of "global domination", Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.

        France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It's a great tactic, I'm certainly not going to criticize them for using it.

        • I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.

          Geographycally the black sea is just a giant lake. It is a closed sea and you need to pass through Instanbul to exit from it and enter in another "closed" sea, the Sea of Marmara.

          Moreover, if Russia just wanted to have access to the Black Sea ports (and Sea of Marmara and then the Mediterranean Sea) they could just have done like the Chinese that just bought the ports they want.

          Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.

          Listen, if there are soldiers of your own country at the polling places it is somewhat obvious, even in Italy we have soldiers (usually just a couple) outside to ensure law and order (not that it will happen something), the problem is when you are voting to accept the annexion to another country and the soldiers from said country are at the polling station.

          It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939.

          WWII broke out exactly because Europe wanted to keep peace at any cost, failing to understand that Hitler never had the intention to stop. What happened in WWI were still a vivid memory here back at the time and I understand that people would have done anything to avoid all the horrors. True, the real reasons date back to the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 Great Depression which set up the stage for someone like Hitler to raise.

          If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.

          Putin want the Great Russia back. But it is no more and he cannot accept it. And he can play the card of an outside enemy to hide the problems he has inside.

You've viewed 131 comments.