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

 

[SaintForLife]

Do yourself a favor- disengage.

A quick google search of the author, combined with just a few clicks of the hyperlinks in his opinion piece will take you to a place of understanding the angle from which his opinion is formed

I did that earlier and was happy that no one took the bait- just came back to see you embroiled in a circular debate.


Here is one he posted

The Mounting Evidence That the US Blocked Peace in Ukraine - Antiwar.com

On June 13, 2023, taking questions from war correspondents at the Kremlin, Putin confirmed what had already been reported: that Russia and Ukraine had - Ted Snider for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

The first 3 lines tell you WHERE they got their info from to compose this opinion piece.

Putin- the guy who NEVER lies. lololol

That article talked about what Putin said about it. They didn't base the article on what Putin said. They listed 4 people who have corroborated it.

The 1st is Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, but besides him it was also Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, & former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

 

[SaintForLife]

Like i said @cuddlemonkey

you are wasting your time- He isnt interested in truth. He is interested in pushing an agenda.

Is there any evidence that the US interfered in, or contributed to, the events which resulted 2014 Ukranian President's loss of power?

In 2014, the then Ukrainian president Yanukovitch absconded the country, and de facto (although not de jure) abdicated power after the protests against him turned violent. A certain phone call, pre...

politics.stackexchange.com

Is there any evidence that the US interfered in, or contributed to, the events which resulted 2014 Ukranian President's loss of power?

In 2014, the then Ukrainian president Yanukovitch absconded the country, and de facto (although not de jure) abdicated power after the protests against him turned violent. A certain phone call, pre...

politics.stackexchange.com

When America supports a sovereign nation who is moving toward a democracy rather than an autocracy, some folks get scared and immediately look to label the US as "war mongerers" or "instigators" - Whereas they completely ignore the fact that had the authoritarians just simply let them evolve into a democratic nation, we wouldnt even be at this point. But authoritarians arent going to let that happen.

Their biggest fear? Losing power.

Moving towards democracy? Lol. Not quite and they are one of the most corrupt countries as well. Protecting democracy is a common excuse for war. Classic war propaganda.

 

[bird]

Moving towards democracy? Lol. Not quite and they are one of the most corrupt countries as well. Protecting democracy is a common excuse for war. Classic war propaganda.

That is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[efil4]

That article talked about what Putin said about it. They didn't base the article on what Putin said. They listed 4 people who have corroborated it.

The 1st is Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, but besides him it was also Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, & former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder.

Sergey Lavrov? lol

Melvut Cavusoglu? this guy? "Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called the Netherlands, "Nazi remnants" and "fascists,"[17] which Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called "a crazy remark."[18] Çavuşoğlu followed by defending Erdoğan's remark,[20] and by saying that the Netherlands was the "capital of fascism"

( BTW that statement was made in 2017....eerily similar to Putins initial statements on Ukraine- coincidence? )

Which stemmed from this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Dutch–Turkish_diplomatic_incident

Naftali- the guy who spoke to Putin personally and told Zelensky that "Putin gave him his word....he wouldnt kill him ( Zelensky ) " LOL ok. Also, context matters as this took place in 2021. its 2023 and Russia is now aligned with Iran. Ask Naftali his thoughts NOW on Putin

Shroder- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html nuff said.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Another vague non answer to me asking you specifically if the US funding the Ukraine war should be unlimited eventhough there's been little to no progress in the last year?

I think I am quite clear on this. We have a duty to help our allies stand up to the country that invaded them and to see that through until the invaders withdraw, ceding back to Ukraine all territory claimed, including Crimea.

Do you agree there has been little to no progress in the war in the last year or do you think the war is going fine for Ukraine as others here think is the case?

I don't think it's going fine, but you have to admit that Ukraine recovered all and then some from the initial attack that saw Russia make it all the way into the outskirts of Kiev.

It's doesn't have anything to do with what you said? We were discussing possible parameters of a ceasefire which included Ukraine not joining NATO. I posted multiple articles that showed that there was a tentative agreement of a ceasefire that included Russia retreating to where it was before 2022 and Ukraine not joining NATO.

It had nothing to do with it because Russia is not an honest negotiator. That has been shown time and again.

The US and the UK made sure that didn't happen because they wanted a longer war with Russa.

Please explain to be how that isnt related to what you said.

Read above.

Do you agree with the US and UK making sure the ceasefire didn't happen at the beginning of the war?

I'm remembering why our discussions only go so far. I'm not justifying Russia invasion. You want a discussion that only includes Russia's actions vs Ukraine, but you don't want any discussion on the US role in the 2014 coup, the US being involved installing Ukraine's new leader and the proxy war with Russia through Ukraine. In your eyes it seems that any mention of the US involvement means I'm justifying the Russian invasion. I'm not. I'm simply stating facts that you don't want to discuss.

No, you are either intentionally muddying the water or you are ignorant as to Putin's vision for Russia that is not predicated on any US involvement in anything.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sergey Lavrov? lol

Melvut Cavusoglu? this guy? "Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called the Netherlands, "Nazi remnants" and "fascists,"[17] which Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called "a crazy remark."[18] Çavuşoğlu followed by defending Erdoğan's remark,[20] and by saying that the Netherlands was the "capital of fascism"

( BTW that statement was made in 2017....eerily similar to Putins initial statements on Ukraine- coincidence? )

Which stemmed from this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Dutch–Turkish_diplomatic_incident

Naftali- the guy who spoke to Putin personally and told Zelensky that "Putin gave him his word....he wouldnt kill him ( Zelensky ) " LOL ok. Also, context matters as this took place in 2021. its 2023 and Russia is now aligned with Iran. Ask Naftali his thoughts NOW on Putin

Shroder- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html nuff said.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that the sources are provided within the text of the article. You can check them yourself to see if the article matches up with the source.

 

[efil4]

Ok so you now claim that the Danish incident and subsequent speech by Melvut is a lie?

I'm not sure because, yet again, you post X links with no commentary. Lolol.

I'm disengaging. ( I was skeptical and now my skepticism fully confirmed)

 

[MT15]

Excellent article on Ukraine both then and now. I'm not sure why the hyperlinks on the last part or the article didn't post here. If you want to see those hyperlinks then click on the article:

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal,” NBC News reported over the weekend, citing unnamed officials on both sides of the Atlantic. “The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the US and Europe.”

Talk about the Cassandra effect.

For the better part of two years, opponents of escalation called for exactly such a course of action, only to be told that it is immoral, unrealistic, or both. Pro-diplomacy voices have consistently maintained that peace talks and some kind of negotiated settlement would be in the best interests of ordinary Ukrainians and their war-battered country, and that the US government should use its leverage to make that happen. They rolled out a litany of evidence to support the claim that, in the words of Canadian-Ukrainian University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski, “even a ‘bad’ peace is better than a ‘good’ war.”

Restrainers indicated that while Kiev is certainly justified in defending itself and trying to reclaim territory seized by Russia, the potential costs to Ukraine of a prolonged war would be much worse than the costs of losing territory. They pointed to the conflict’s staggering and unsustainable casualty figures for a country with a prewar population less than a third of Russia’s. They also tallied the profound economic costs of continued warfare, which saw Ukraine’s GDP shrink by 30 percent in just the first year; the country survived on the back of international grants and loans that left it deeper in debt and increasingly at the mercy of its neoliberal creditors.

...For their efforts, pro-peace and pro-restraint voices were viciously attacked. They were slammed with scurrilous accusations of carrying water for the Kremlin, smeared as propagandists and traitors, charged with secretly supporting Putin’s war, and labeled appeasers no better than Neville Chamberlain in “rewarding” a Hitler-like aggressor. Just recall the hailstorm of invective that rained down upon the group of House progressives who last October issued what one congressional aide accurately called “the world’s softest trial balloon about diplomacy.” “Ukraine will win,” was the incessantly repeated cry justifying this disgraceful behavior, as escalation proponents looked forward to a counteroffensive they were sure would justify this industrial-scale suffering.

Well, it’s now five months since the Ukrainians launched their counteroffensive, and what has been the result? In short, it’s been an unmitigated failure: From Jan. 1 to the end of September, Ukrainian forces had only taken 143 square miles, at the cost of around 50,000 lives, according to US estimates, with Kiev resorting to conscripting older cohorts of men in the face of a dwindling pool of healthy recruits. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, recently admitted the war is a “stalemate.” Advisers around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are anonymously calling him delusional and convinced of a victory that is simply impossible.

...In other words, just as pro-peace voices had warned, Ukraine is now looking at the worst of both worlds: accepting a far inferior peace deal, while having weathered the tremendous human and economic costs of a prolonged conflict. Most perversely, Kiev has been put into this position by those who postured as its most ardent supporters, the hawks who thought of the war as a way of humiliating Russia on the cheap.

Fact is, this war could have been brought to a close at several points earlier, and on identical or more favorable terms for Ukraine. There is now a mountain of corroborating evidence from those involved that peace talks in the earliest weeks of the war were bearing fruit, and that there was a tentative agreement for Russia to withdraw to its pre-February 2022 lines in exchange for Ukraine staying out of NATO. Washington and London scuttled such settlements in favor of a longer conflict that would be more damaging to Russia. Pro-war voices later pointed to the Bucha massacre to explain why these talks fell through, but both Zelensky and Ukrainian public opinion continued to favor negotiations after this atrocity was uncovered.

Zelensky himself was ignored throughout the middle of last year, when he repeatedly and publicly called for talks, and when there were ample signs that Moscow was open to them. Then, after the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in September 2022—which saw a humiliating Russian retreat and the Ukrainian reconquest of more than 1,000 square miles of territory in six days—this stance changed. Kiev now rejected the Russian offers to negotiate and instead expanded its ambitions. The same Biden administration that had spent a year undercutting Zelensky’s attempts at negotiation now took up the mantle of “Nothing About Ukraine Without Ukraine” and fully backed Zelensky’s hawkish approach.

But it was only after this September decision that Moscow began attacking and destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, Ukraine started losing a reported three-digit number of troops every day in the Bakhmut disaster, and the destruction of the Kakhovka dam caused devastating damage to surrounding areas and Ukraine’s agricultural future. This isn’t even to mention tens of thousands of Ukrainian casualties, nor the fact that, by October, Russia had actually made a net gain of nearly 200 square miles since the start of the year. These disasters could have been entirely avoided had negotiations been supported last year—or at least mitigated, had the Biden administration followed up on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s November call for Ukraine to “seize the moment” and pursue talks.

Instead, both the Biden administration and much of the US media establishment loudly rejected Milley’s plea in favor of maximalist aims on the battlefield. There is no denying that this blinkered mentality has now yielded precisely the disastrous state of affairs warned about. Only months later, with the Ukrainian offensive having gone nowhere, did a US official anonymously (and very quietly) admit to Politico that “Milley had a point.”

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

This article is horribly slanted - and it attempts to rewrite history. There was always the possibility of a stalemate - I well remember reading about that possibility as soon as it became obvious that Putin wasn’t going to roll into Kyiv in 3 days, no matter how many war crimes he committed. I don’t think the war is in a stalemate, however, and saying that it is only helps Putin, who will end up losing.

There were no serious offers from Putin to negotiate, anyway.

 

[MT15]

I have complicated thoughts on it.. I would say that I certainly believe in theory that Russia has no rights to the land they've taken from Ukraine in any sort of "peace" agreement that may be reached. I view the land as illegally taken from Ukraine by Russia and in my perfect world Ukraine is able to take back all of it and fully push Russia out.

But also in dealing with it in reality it seems that the actual progression of taking back land has mostly stalled and.. while I'm not saying I know for sure that we're to this stage of it just yet.. at what point does the situation need to be reassessed based upon that seeming reality and the connected realization that continuing to fund this war in the way we have been is only producing negligible gains at this point?

If there are real reasons to believe that breakthroughs are on the horizon, then OK.. but if that's not the case - which seems to be the situation based upon what that Ukrainian general or whoever recently said - I think we're probably getting to about the point here where things need to be reevaluated.

There isn’t a single source posted by SFL that isn’t propaganda in one form or another. I would caution you to believe any of it.

 

[DaveXA]

Maps from who?

Well, it’s now five months since the Ukrainians launched their counteroffensive, and what has been the result? In short, it’s been an unmitigated failure: From Jan. 1 to the end of September, Ukrainian forces had only taken 143 square miles, at the cost of around 50,000 lives, according to US estimates, with Kiev resorting to conscripting older cohorts of men in the face of a dwindling pool of healthy recruits. Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the commander of Ukraine’s armed forces, recently admitted the war is a “stalemate.” Advisers around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are anonymously calling him delusional and convinced of a victory that is simply impossible.

A Bitter Vindication for Ukraine Doves

After alternately ignoring and vilifying advocates for restraint in Ukraine, the foreign-policy establishment is coming around to … restraint. Over the past few months, American and European diplomats have been urging the Ukrainian government to sue for peace. “The conversations have included...

compactmag.com

The Ukrainian General says there is a stalemate and negotiations have been ongoing recently for a ceasefire, but continue posting things that act like the war is going fine if you want.

You don't know who the ISW is? Figures.

And quoting anonymous sources is rich.

 

[bdb13]

There isn’t a single source posted by SFL that isn’t propaganda in one form or another. I would caution you to believe any of it.

I am not basing my opinions on anything he has posted.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I'm not delusional and absolutely do not believe Russia attacked in self-defense. The NATO crap is a bullshirt excuse for their naked aggression and Ukraine is fully within its right to defend its territory and attempt to regain what's been lost to Russia.

I was thinking about it and.. I'm really just thinking (typing) out loud here.. but perhaps a shift from offensive funding of Ukraine to defensive funding (yes I realize this was basically happening prior to Russia launching the war - and perhaps the argument is that what's occurring now is largely defensive funding) with a purpose of maintaining what Ukraine does currently possess may be necessary if it becomes clear that the Ukrainian effort in regaining territory is a lost cause. That latter part there is just the thing for me.. I don't see the point in funding a clear lost cause.

And yes, I am under no illusion that Russia will not try this again or.. whatever. Putin is a piece of shirt whose ultimate goal would be to piece back together the USSR as much as possible imo.

so you are ok to keep giving them money as long as we call it something else.. gotcha..

 

[bdb13]

so you are ok to keep giving them money as long as we call it something else.. gotcha..

Yeah.. that's not really what I mean but if you're going to be condescending towards me there's no point in discussing it.

 

[J-DONK]

I am not basing my opinions on anything he has posted.

There was nothing wrong with your opinion. Realistically, if Ukraine doesn't start moving the lines with F-16's there will be a huge push for some kind of peace talks. There is hope in NATO that air superiority, and a wider variety of weapon platforms(via F-16s) will get the frontline moving again.

 

[bdb13]

There was nothing wrong with your opinion. Realistically, if Ukraine doesn't start moving the lines with F-16's there will be a huge push for some kind of peace talks. There is hope in NATO that air superiority, and a wider variety of weapon platforms(via F-16s) will get the frontline moving again.

Thanks. I think that makes sense.

 

[DaveXA]

There was nothing wrong with your opinion. Realistically, if Ukraine doesn't start moving the lines with F-16's there will be a huge push for some kind of peace talks. There is hope in NATO that air superiority, and a wider variety of weapon platforms(via F-16s) will get the frontline moving again.

The F-16s might help some, but they're not going to affect movement on the ground a whole lot imo.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The F-16s might help some, but they're not going to affect movement on the ground a whole lot imo.

If the F-16's give Ukraine air superiority or even equal competitiveness, then Ukraine will be able to use airstrikes in support of ground assaults. Airstrikes are the best way to soften up ground troops entrenched in defensive fortifications. Airstrikes make a huge difference and Ukraine's lack of being able to conduct airstrikes is the main reason their ground forces are making such glacial progress.