Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (6 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
4,944
Reaction score
12,558
Location
Charleston, SC
Online
Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.


VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.






 
Can't view those NY Times articles without a subscription, So here are some recent articles from free sites.













 
Can't view those NY Times articles without a subscription, So here are some recent articles from free sites.














Thanks.

Also I think you can view a certain amount of NYT without paying, but you do have to have a log in (you can use Facebook, Google, or Apple).
 
realistically, does the R party even oppose the invasion of Ukraine? Tucker is parroting straight up Russian propaganda these days. Does Maga World support Russia getting Ukraine back, it seems like it might. How can Putin resist taking advantage of the support of most of the R party like this?

what would Reagan say about the Rs of today?
 
realistically, does the R party even oppose the invasion of Ukraine? Tucker is parroting straight up Russian propaganda these days. Does Maga World support Russia getting Ukraine back, it seems like it might. How can Putin resist taking advantage of the support of most of the R party like this?

what would Reagan say about the Rs of today?

I don't think the GOP is monolithic on Russia. The populists/Trumpists see Putin in a favorable light, and Tucker, Cawthorn, etc. represent that view - but I think there are still more mature elements of the party that have a more traditional view.

The biggest problem with the view that Russia's concern about Ukraine joining NATO what is provoking this is that Ukraine's biggest security problem is Russia. Just a few years ago, Russia completed the first annexation by force of land in Europe since the Iron Curtain and did so with relatively little geopolitical fallout. Russia uses various means of pressure over Ukraine to attempt to control it, including direct threats of invasion. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that is why.

Tucker's view (that it is perfectly within Russia's interests to oppose and resist NATO for Ukraine) that it would be similar to Mexico coming into alliance with China is totally misplaced. The US doesn't exert the kind of political, economic, and military pressure on Mexico that Russia does on Ukraine. Putin wants Ukraine to be de facto under Russian hegemony even if he can't return to the glory days of Soviet territory in the region. And he's now using Ukraine's resistance to that objective as a pretext to exert more pressure. There is nothing like that happening between the US and Mexico.
 
Last edited:
realistically, does the R party even oppose the invasion of Ukraine? Tucker is parroting straight up Russian propaganda these days. Does Maga World support Russia getting Ukraine back, it seems like it might. How can Putin resist taking advantage of the support of most of the R party like this?

what would Reagan say about the Rs of today?
Reagan could never make it through a Republican primary today.
 
Russia has already been fighting a proxy war with Ukraine for a few years now. I recall something about Russian soldiers in "plainclothes" crossing over the border held by those opposed to Ukraine. They didn't have Russian uniforms, or anything, but they certainly were Russian soldiers. Also a few years back they, or the proxy w/ their tech, shot down a passenger plane.

 
Biden thinks they are going in. I wonder if it's to late to buy some LNG stocks.
I agree. I have not watched the second half of his press conference yet, but in the first half I heard a mobilization speech which was trying to stay on the side of "is likely" rather than "is immanent," (scare quotes).

DEFCON 3 as adverse to DEFCON 2
 
Really excellent piece here at FP. Note that "liberalism" in this context does not refer to American "liberal politics" but to a school of thought in foreign policy that contrasts with the "realism" school.

 
I agree. I have not watched the second half of his press conference yet, but in the first half I heard a mobilization speech which was trying to stay on the side of "is likely" rather than "is immanent," (scare quotes).

DEFCON 3 as adverse to DEFCON 2

He also said that a 'minor incursion' wouldn't likely draw the same response from the West - which I think had the foreign policy apparatus grumbling under their breath. That may be true but you don't say it out loud. As far as Kiev is concerned, there's no such thing as a minor incursion.
 
Looks like the White House is trying to walk back the 'minor incursion' comment.


In a minor way I disagree with your assessment that he or his administration are walking anything back. That clarification is walking his comment further forward.

The gilded sword was shaken one additional time to enhance its effect.
 
In a minor way I disagree with your assessment that he or his administration are walking anything back. That clarification is walking his comment further forward.

The gilded sword was shaken one additional time to enhance its effect.

I don't really follow you. I think his comment in the presser that a minor incursion wouldn't draw a serious response was immediately recognized as a poor choice of words. It suggests to Moscow that it's a spectrum and a certain amount of incursion might not be considered severe (as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty), and words that would be unsettling in Kiev, which does view any incursion as dire. The Psaki statement appears to be saying that "any" incursion will draw a "severe" response . . . which is quite different from Biden's comment that "it's one thing if it's a minor incursion . . . ." It is, in effect, saying that the official US position isn't consistent with the president's remark.


 
Last edited:
I don't really follow you. I think his comment in the presser that a minor incursion wouldn't draw a serious response was immediately recognized as a poor choice of words. It suggests to Moscow that's an spectrum and a certain amount of incursion might not be considered severe (as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty), and words that would be unsettling in Kiev, which does view any incursion as dire. The Psaki statement appears to be saying that "any" incursion will draw a "severe" response . . . which is quite different from Biden's comment that "it's one thing if it's a minor incursion . . . ." It is, in effect, saying that the official US position isn't consistent with the president's remark.



You and I are seeing the same things. You said walking back, and I said walking forward, but what it was we seem to be in agreement about. Just the direction it goes is the only difference.

Select murky members of the media are making something here which isn't. CNN should generally be ignored.

The controversy which wasn't,,, for what it was it hung there and lasted for all of 5 minutes at the most. Then a question was asked of Biden to clarify this, and in his response his clarification was basically what Jen Psaki later said.

Joe chuckled when he was asked to clarify that as if to acknowledge that it was something which needed more clarification and he was happy to oblige.

All of that was done and completely done over before CNN raked the bottom muck for any wisps of controversy that those gelatinous bottom dwellers could make use of.


You might get the impression that I don't like CNN.

:)
 
If we accept a Russian invasion in Ukraine, how quickly does China roll into Taiwan?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom