Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

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.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You asked me what the parameters should be for a ceasefire and I said I had no idea. Then you asked me to agree to certain conditions for a ceasefire. I could have responded again and said what I said previously, but I didn't see the need to repeat myself.

I didn't ask you to agree. I asked you if you agreed. I was trying to continue the conversation. I will ask you again: do you think that is a good place to start from?

 

[SaintForLife]

I didn't ask you to agree. I asked you if you agreed. I was trying to continue the conversation. I will ask you again: do you think that is a good place to start from?

I have no idea what the parameters should be for a ceasefire. I'm good with whatever ends the war. What you posted sounds fine. Crimea seems to be the only thing that won't be decided easily especially considering how much of Crimea supported Russia before the war began.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have no idea what the parameters should be for a ceasefire. I'm good with whatever ends the war. What you posted sounds fine. Crimea seems to be the only thing that won't be decided easily especially considering how much of Crimea supported Russia before the war began.

How far does this extend? Would you be fine with Ukraine surrendering and letting Russia take large swaths of land?

 

[SaintForLife]

Just wanted to revisit this. First off, I don't hate you either. Do I hate Trump supporters in general? I'd say I hate their support of Trump.

Being that I feel there's very strong evidence indicating that Trump purposely and/or recklessly facilitated a terrorist attack against fellow Americans for his own personal and political gain, what is an appropriate way for me to feel towards individuals who are wanting to place him back into power? I certainly feel hostility - I'm not going to lie - towards them for the indifference or support they show towards Trump post-election/January 6th.. and I'm just curious that if you accept that it's rational of me to believe that Trump facilitated what occurred on January 6 (which again, I absolutely consider terrorism), in your opinion what is the appropriate way for me to feel towards the individuals who continue to support him? Thanks.

Is there any evidence that anyone including Trump, Republicans in Congress or anyone in the government coordinated January 6th with the Oath Keepers or any other of the rioters?

I'll repost what I posted about January 6th a while back on the conservative board:

Regarding the first question, although more information will become available over time, it seems unlikely that NATO members would seriously view the incident as a coup attempt. For one thing, as Jonathan Tepperman noted in Foreign Policy, there is no evidence of coordination with the military that defines successful modern coups. In addition, President Donald Trump and his erstwhile political allies seemed nearly as surprised as everyone else by what transpired. They maintained radio silence as the event unfolded, making no effort to control or craft a narrative justifying the violence taking place. There was no equivalent of the Bolshevik occupation of the Central Telegraph Office in 1917, for example. Finally, in a country the size of the United States, a serious coup attempt would require the conspirators to take simultaneous measures to retain control of regions outside the nation’s capital. Again, there is zero evidence for any of this, as America’s allies are certainly well aware.

Do U.S. Allies Think the Capitol Siege was an Attempted Coup?

Worries about American democracy will be used to justify a series of policies that Washington views as geopolitically risky, but which allies see as granting them strategic flexibility or economic benefits.

nationalinterest.org

Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.

Why This Wasn’t a Coup

Here’s the right language for what’s happening in Washington—and why the terminology matters.

foreignpolicy.com

The storming of the Capital didn't fit the criteria for a military, executive, or civilian coup as well as an autoglopes. There wasn't any coordination between the people storming the Capital and any parts of the government.

A violent mob inside the Capital couldn't be a coup on it's own. They weren't going to set up their own government and they had no institutional support and no configuration of power.

 

[SaintForLife]

How far does this extend? Would you be fine with Ukraine surrendering and letting Russia take large swaths of land?

If Ukraine decided that was in their interests in regards to a ceasefire then sure. If Russia was demanding that then no.

 

[bdb13]

Is there any evidence that anyone including Trump, Republicans in Congress or anyone in the government coordinated January 6th with the Oath Keepers or any other of the rioters?

I'll repost what I posted about January 6th a while back on the conservative board:

Regarding the first question, although more information will become available over time, it seems unlikely that NATO members would seriously view the incident as a coup attempt. For one thing, as Jonathan Tepperman noted in Foreign Policy, there is no evidence of coordination with the military that defines successful modern coups. In addition, President Donald Trump and his erstwhile political allies seemed nearly as surprised as everyone else by what transpired. They maintained radio silence as the event unfolded, making no effort to control or craft a narrative justifying the violence taking place. There was no equivalent of the Bolshevik occupation of the Central Telegraph Office in 1917, for example. Finally, in a country the size of the United States, a serious coup attempt would require the conspirators to take simultaneous measures to retain control of regions outside the nation’s capital. Again, there is zero evidence for any of this, as America’s allies are certainly well aware.

Do U.S. Allies Think the Capitol Siege was an Attempted Coup?

Worries about American democracy will be used to justify a series of policies that Washington views as geopolitically risky, but which allies see as granting them strategic flexibility or economic benefits.

nationalinterest.org

Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.

Why This Wasn’t a Coup

Here’s the right language for what’s happening in Washington—and why the terminology matters.

foreignpolicy.com

The storming of the Capital didn't fit the criteria for a military, executive, or civilian coup as well as an autoglopes. There wasn't any coordination between the people storming the Capital and any parts of the government.

A violent mob inside the Capital couldn't be a coup on it's own. They weren't going to set up their own government and they had no institutional support and no configuration of power.

Give me some time and I'll respond..

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If Ukraine decided that was in their interests in regards to a ceasefire then sure. If Russia was demanding that then no.

And if Ukraine were to 100% decide that it is not in their best interest and Russia 100% demanded it, should Ukraine be left alone to defend itself?

 

[SaintForLife]

And if Ukraine were to 100% decide that it is not in their best interest and Russia 100% demanded it, should Ukraine be left alone to defend itself?

Left alone to defend it? Are you talking about the US continuing funding the Ukraine War?

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

What if Russia offered a ceasefire if Ukraine committed to not join NATO? Control of Crimea would most likely be a sticking point.

 

[bdb13]

Is there any evidence that anyone including Trump, Republicans in Congress or anyone in the government coordinated January 6th with the Oath Keepers or any other of the rioters?

I'll repost what I posted about January 6th a while back on the conservative board:

Regarding the first question, although more information will become available over time, it seems unlikely that NATO members would seriously view the incident as a coup attempt. For one thing, as Jonathan Tepperman noted in Foreign Policy, there is no evidence of coordination with the military that defines successful modern coups. In addition, President Donald Trump and his erstwhile political allies seemed nearly as surprised as everyone else by what transpired. They maintained radio silence as the event unfolded, making no effort to control or craft a narrative justifying the violence taking place. There was no equivalent of the Bolshevik occupation of the Central Telegraph Office in 1917, for example. Finally, in a country the size of the United States, a serious coup attempt would require the conspirators to take simultaneous measures to retain control of regions outside the nation’s capital. Again, there is zero evidence for any of this, as America’s allies are certainly well aware.

Do U.S. Allies Think the Capitol Siege was an Attempted Coup?

Worries about American democracy will be used to justify a series of policies that Washington views as geopolitically risky, but which allies see as granting them strategic flexibility or economic benefits.

nationalinterest.org

Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.

Why This Wasn’t a Coup

Here’s the right language for what’s happening in Washington—and why the terminology matters.

foreignpolicy.com

The storming of the Capital didn't fit the criteria for a military, executive, or civilian coup as well as an autoglopes. There wasn't any coordination between the people storming the Capital and any parts of the government.

A violent mob inside the Capital couldn't be a coup on it's own. They weren't going to set up their own government and they had no institutional support and no configuration of power.

Can you send me the entirety of that article? I can't access it without a subscription.

 

[DaveXA]

Left alone to defend it? Are you talking about the US continuing funding the Ukraine War?

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

Actually Ukraine has been making plenty of progress lately. Maybe try and keep up with current news?

What if Russia offered a ceasefire if Ukraine committed to not join NATO? Control of Crimea would most likely be a sticking point.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Left alone to defend it? Are you talking about the US continuing funding the Ukraine War?

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

I definitely think we should be helping our allies defend themselves against aggressive foreign invaders.

What if Russia offered a ceasefire if Ukraine committed to not join NATO? Control of Crimea would most likely be a sticking point.

Ukraine is not the aggressor. I don't think Russia is in any position to demand promises from others, to be honest. And not wanting NATO at their borders is a ridiculous excuse, given the presence of multiple NATO member states already bordering Russia.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I have no idea what the parameters should be for a ceasefire. I'm good with whatever ends the war. What you posted sounds fine. Crimea seems to be the only thing that won't be decided easily especially considering how much of Crimea supported Russia before the war began.

so you would be ok with Ukraine giving Russia all of it's land and then Russia complaining because Nato is surrounding his territory? I'm sure he'd agree to stop at Ukraine..

 

[MT15]

Is there any evidence that anyone including Trump, Republicans in Congress or anyone in the government coordinated January 6th with the Oath Keepers or any other of the rioters?

I'll repost what I posted about January 6th a while back on the conservative board:

Regarding the first question, although more information will become available over time, it seems unlikely that NATO members would seriously view the incident as a coup attempt. For one thing, as Jonathan Tepperman noted in Foreign Policy, there is no evidence of coordination with the military that defines successful modern coups. In addition, President Donald Trump and his erstwhile political allies seemed nearly as surprised as everyone else by what transpired. They maintained radio silence as the event unfolded, making no effort to control or craft a narrative justifying the violence taking place. There was no equivalent of the Bolshevik occupation of the Central Telegraph Office in 1917, for example. Finally, in a country the size of the United States, a serious coup attempt would require the conspirators to take simultaneous measures to retain control of regions outside the nation’s capital. Again, there is zero evidence for any of this, as America’s allies are certainly well aware.

Do U.S. Allies Think the Capitol Siege was an Attempted Coup?

Worries about American democracy will be used to justify a series of policies that Washington views as geopolitically risky, but which allies see as granting them strategic flexibility or economic benefits.

nationalinterest.org

Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.

Why This Wasn’t a Coup

Here’s the right language for what’s happening in Washington—and why the terminology matters.

foreignpolicy.com

The storming of the Capital didn't fit the criteria for a military, executive, or civilian coup as well as an autoglopes. There wasn't any coordination between the people storming the Capital and any parts of the government.

A violent mob inside the Capital couldn't be a coup on it's own. They weren't going to set up their own government and they had no institutional support and no configuration of power.

It wasn’t a military coup, but only because the military refused. Trump was/is truly livid over the fact that the generals put out a statement saying they would play no role in domestic elections. That is the time when he decided to go to plan B, which was to interrupt the counting of electoral votes, and he set up the “Stop the Steal” rally as “wild” at that point in time. The hope was that Pence would set aside the electoral votes from selected states - throwing the election to the House, which would elect Trump. But if he wouldn’t Trump intended the crowd to do exactly what it did - interrupt the count.

We now have sworn testimony from Ellis that Dan Scavino told her that the “boss” did not intend to leave the WH no matter what. They intended to stay in power. We had GOP reps and senators calling for a 10-day delay (which is unconstitutional) during which time the Trump team intended to apply pressure to GOP state legislators to recall the correct electors and appoint Trump electors. Their attempts were all coordinated with the WH. I believe the campaign at least coordinated with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as well. And I would not be surprised if there wasn’t some coordination with some Admin officials as well.

There were only a couple reasons it didn’t work as intended. Pence refused. And the Congress was resolved to finish the count that night. They refused to go along with the delay that Trump wanted.

This was not a mere riot. It was an attempt by Trump to stay in power even though he lost the election. The military wouldn’t go along with it. And Congress and Pence found a spine at the last minute.

 

[SaintForLife]

Can you send me the entirety of that article? I can't access it without a subscription.

I don't have a subscription to that website. The article was available to anyone back when I posted it.

 

[SaintForLife]

I definitely think we should be helping our allies defend themselves against aggressive foreign invaders.

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

Ukraine is not the aggressor. I don't think Russia is in any position to demand promises from others, to be honest. And not wanting NATO at their borders is a ridiculous excuse, given the presence of multiple NATO member states already bordering Russia

Demanding promises? You asked me what the parameters of a ceasefire should be. Russia is responsible for invading Ukraine, but let's not leave out how the US pushed for the coup in 2014 and have been using Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia since 2014.

 

[SaintForLife]

Actually Ukraine has been making plenty of progress lately. Maybe try and keep up with current news?

But I'm the one who's condescending huh? Anyways it seems that's it's you that hasn't keep up with the news.

From the Washington Post's resident neocon and lover of all wars and conflicts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/ukraine-stalemate-zaluzhny-drones-defensive-dominance/

NBC News:

The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe, officials said.

They began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing aid to Ukraine, officials said. Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply, officials said. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and has recently seen public protests about some of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open-ended conscription requirements.

U.S., European officials broach topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, sources say

The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.

www.nbcnews.com

NYT:

 

[DaveXA]

How long do you think we should continue to fund the Ukraine War if they aren't making any progress as it has been the case the last 6 months or so?

You keep asserting this Ukraine is not making progress in the last 6 months when is utterly false. There's plenty of reports that Ukraine is holding their own.

 

[DaveXA]

But I'm the one who's condescending huh? Anyways it seems that's it's you that hasn't keep up with the news.

From the Washington Post's resident neocon and lover of all wars and conflicts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/ukraine-stalemate-zaluzhny-drones-defensive-dominance/

NBC News:

The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe, officials said.

They began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing aid to Ukraine, officials said. Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply, officials said. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and has recently seen public protests about some of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open-ended conscription requirements.

U.S., European officials broach topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, sources say

The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal with Russia.

www.nbcnews.com

NYT:

Lmao, really? That's all you got?