Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (2 Viewers)

[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

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Yeah I definitely thought Russia was just going to roll them and that Zelensky would end up dead.

Shows what I know and very happy to have been wrong.

And i think that if NATO wasn't expecting the same thing, Ukraine would have gotten help much earlier and we could be having a different conversation. but hindsight and all..

 

[SaintForLife]

He doesn't think the ISW is a valid source. Lol.

But yeah.

I didn't know that's who you were referring to and that's why I said "ISW?"

Imagine mocking me about ISW when you apparently are unaware that they are a neocon thinktank that's funded by weapons manufacturers. Have you ever heard that mentioned by any reporters citing their information?

2020:

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Corporate%20Council-02.png

I see they have some different companies funding them now, but still have GM and General Dynamics.

But there are two things about the Institute for the Study of War that you may not know.

First is the extent of its influence. Since war broke out in February, ISW has been the elite media’s go-to think tank for information and analysis. Barely a day goes by that it isn’t cited by a reporter in either the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. In the past six days—the first six days of this month—it has been cited in at least ten articles that appeared in one of those outlets.

The second thing you may not be aware of is how ideological the academic-sounding Institute for the Study of War is. It has neoconservative roots and is run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks. Over the years it has gotten funding from various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser known defense contractors, and big companies, like General Motors, that aren’t known as defense contractors but do get Pentagon contracts.

Before saying more about ISW, I want to emphasize that I’m not claiming to have caught it in some capital crime. The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle.

Another claim I’m not making is that ISW has exerted pivotal influence in the case of Ukraine. I’m not even saying the larger network of hawkish think tanks it’s part of has been pivotal. When a big country run by a famously ruthless autocrat invades a smaller neighbor that’s a democracy, Americans will naturally (and rightly) side with the country that got invaded and will favor giving it support. In that sense, the Institute for the Study of War, along with other voices that advocate robust military spending, has been pushing on an open door.

...The president and founder of the Institute for the Study of War is Kimberly Kagan, a military historian who is married to Frederick Kagan, who is also a military historian and does work for ISW. Frederick is a well-known neoconservative, though not as well-known as his brother Robert. In the 1990s, Robert Kagan, along with Bill Kristol (who is on ISW’s board), founded the Project for a New American Century, which in the view of some observers played an important role in convincing George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan have cultivated close ties to the Defense Department—sometimes raising questions about whether the ties were too close. A 2012 Washington Post piece said General David Petraeus had turned the couple into “de facto senior advisers.” The Post continued:

The pro-bono relationship, which is now being scrutinized by military lawyers, yielded valuable benefits for the general and the couple. The Kagans’ proximity to Petraeus, the country’s most-famous living general, provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank [ISW]. For Petraeus, embracing two respected national security analysts in GOP circles helped to shore up support for the [Afghanistan] war among Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

All of this helps explain why noted phrasemaker Mickey Kaus has called the Kagan family “the Kagan industrial complex.” Speaking of which:

Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is the state department official who very publicly supported Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution—the overthrow of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych, which led Russia to seize Crimea and give military support to secessionist rebels in the Donbass. Nuland also played a behind-the-scenes role in this transition of power that, according to some of her detractors, amounted to orchestrating a coup.

And as long as we’re going down rabbit holes: The Kagan-Kristol Project for a New American Century was funded by arms makers, thanks largely to the work of Lockheed Martin executive Bruce P. Jackson, who became a director of PNAC. Jackson had earlier organized the US Committee to Expand NATO, which successfully lobbied for what its name suggests it lobbied for. Some people think NATO expansion—in particular George W. Bush’s 2008 addition of Ukraine to the list of future members—helped cause the Ukraine war, but in any event NATO expansion has over the past quarter century made lots and lots of money for Lockheed Martin and other arms makers.

But I digress. Back to the Institute for the Study of War.

ISW, like some other highly ideological think tanks, exerts its influence along two main paths: (1) explicitly opining about policies; (2) doing reporting and analysis that is ostensibly objective but may implicitly favor certain policies. For example:

As Sarah Lazare of In These Times has pointed out, in August of last year, as the US was withdrawing from Afghanistan (1) retired Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of ISW’s board, was on TV arguing against the pullout, while (2) ISW was putting out papers that didn’t explicitly oppose withdrawal but warned of various kinds of bad consequences. (Lazare notes that, at the same time, the CEO of CACI International, one of ISW’s funders, was warning on a conference call that the Afghanistan withdrawal would hurt its profits in the next fiscal year.)

A case study in American propaganda

What is the Institute for the Study of War? And why do America’s elite media outlets trust it for all of their on-the-ground Ukraine information?

responsiblestatecraft.org

 

[MT15]

Good lord, do you actually read what you post? Do you spend any time thinking critically about what you post?

Can you point out how anything posted above discredits the positions of ISW?

The tip off that you are reading flat out opinion and not fact is the inclusion of the discredited “US pulled off a coup in Ukraine” angle.

Then your writer posits this gem, wherein they say that ISW is not untruthful. The bolded part is just laugh-out-loud ridiculous. The propagenda that ISW puts out there is so subtle that it’s actually truth.

In the next paragraph your writer goes on to say that ISW hasn’t even been influential at all about Ukraine. Their propaganda is so subtle that it doesn’t even influence anyone.

How can anyone take this nonsense seriously?

“Before saying more about ISW, I want to emphasize that I’m not claiming to have caught it in some capital crime. The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle.

Another claim I’m not making is that ISW has exerted pivotal influence in the case of Ukraine. I’m not even saying the larger network of hawkish think tanks it’s part of has been pivotal. When a big country run by a famously ruthless autocrat invades a smaller neighbor that’s a democracy, Americans will naturally (and rightly) side with the country that got invaded and will favor giving it support. In that sense, the Institute for the Study of War, along with other voices that advocate robust military spending, has been pushing on an open door.”

 

[DaveXA]

Good lord, do you actually read what you post? Do you spend any time thinking critically about what you post?

Can you point out how anything posted above discredits the positions of ISW?

Ikr. It doesn't. Talk about a swing and a miss.

 

[bdb13]

I didn't know that's who you were referring to and that's why I said "ISW?"

Imagine mocking me about ISW when you apparently are unaware that they are a neocon thinktank that's funded by weapons manufacturers. Have you ever heard that mentioned by any reporters citing their information?

2020:

https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Corporate%20Council-02.png

I see they have some different companies funding them now, but still have GM and General Dynamics.

But there are two things about the Institute for the Study of War that you may not know.

First is the extent of its influence. Since war broke out in February, ISW has been the elite media’s go-to think tank for information and analysis. Barely a day goes by that it isn’t cited by a reporter in either the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. In the past six days—the first six days of this month—it has been cited in at least ten articles that appeared in one of those outlets.

The second thing you may not be aware of is how ideological the academic-sounding Institute for the Study of War is. It has neoconservative roots and is run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks. Over the years it has gotten funding from various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser known defense contractors, and big companies, like General Motors, that aren’t known as defense contractors but do get Pentagon contracts.

Before saying more about ISW, I want to emphasize that I’m not claiming to have caught it in some capital crime. The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle.

Another claim I’m not making is that ISW has exerted pivotal influence in the case of Ukraine. I’m not even saying the larger network of hawkish think tanks it’s part of has been pivotal. When a big country run by a famously ruthless autocrat invades a smaller neighbor that’s a democracy, Americans will naturally (and rightly) side with the country that got invaded and will favor giving it support. In that sense, the Institute for the Study of War, along with other voices that advocate robust military spending, has been pushing on an open door.

...The president and founder of the Institute for the Study of War is Kimberly Kagan, a military historian who is married to Frederick Kagan, who is also a military historian and does work for ISW. Frederick is a well-known neoconservative, though not as well-known as his brother Robert. In the 1990s, Robert Kagan, along with Bill Kristol (who is on ISW’s board), founded the Project for a New American Century, which in the view of some observers played an important role in convincing George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan have cultivated close ties to the Defense Department—sometimes raising questions about whether the ties were too close. A 2012 Washington Post piece said General David Petraeus had turned the couple into “de facto senior advisers.” The Post continued:

The pro-bono relationship, which is now being scrutinized by military lawyers, yielded valuable benefits for the general and the couple. The Kagans’ proximity to Petraeus, the country’s most-famous living general, provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank [ISW]. For Petraeus, embracing two respected national security analysts in GOP circles helped to shore up support for the [Afghanistan] war among Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

All of this helps explain why noted phrasemaker Mickey Kaus has called the Kagan family “the Kagan industrial complex.” Speaking of which:

Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is the state department official who very publicly supported Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution—the overthrow of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych, which led Russia to seize Crimea and give military support to secessionist rebels in the Donbass. Nuland also played a behind-the-scenes role in this transition of power that, according to some of her detractors, amounted to orchestrating a coup.

And as long as we’re going down rabbit holes: The Kagan-Kristol Project for a New American Century was funded by arms makers, thanks largely to the work of Lockheed Martin executive Bruce P. Jackson, who became a director of PNAC. Jackson had earlier organized the US Committee to Expand NATO, which successfully lobbied for what its name suggests it lobbied for. Some people think NATO expansion—in particular George W. Bush’s 2008 addition of Ukraine to the list of future members—helped cause the Ukraine war, but in any event NATO expansion has over the past quarter century made lots and lots of money for Lockheed Martin and other arms makers.

But I digress. Back to the Institute for the Study of War.

ISW, like some other highly ideological think tanks, exerts its influence along two main paths: (1) explicitly opining about policies; (2) doing reporting and analysis that is ostensibly objective but may implicitly favor certain policies. For example:

As Sarah Lazare of In These Times has pointed out, in August of last year, as the US was withdrawing from Afghanistan (1) retired Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of ISW’s board, was on TV arguing against the pullout, while (2) ISW was putting out papers that didn’t explicitly oppose withdrawal but warned of various kinds of bad consequences. (Lazare notes that, at the same time, the CEO of CACI International, one of ISW’s funders, was warning on a conference call that the Afghanistan withdrawal would hurt its profits in the next fiscal year.)

A case study in American propaganda

What is the Institute for the Study of War? And why do America’s elite media outlets trust it for all of their on-the-ground Ukraine information?

responsiblestatecraft.org

It sounds like ISW is pretty trustworthy based upon reading that, am I incorrectly interpreting it?

 

[SaintForLife]

It sounds like ISW is pretty trustworthy based upon reading that, am I incorrectly interpreting it?

You think that a think tank that's funded by weapons manufacturers and that is a neocon nepotism project isn't pushing war propaganda?

The weapons manufacturers want war to continue so they can continue to make money..

 

[SaintForLife]

Ikr. It doesn't. Talk about a swing and a miss.

Imagine being so wrapped up in US war propaganda that you are shown that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers and you think that is fine.

Have you ever heard one single reporter mention that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers? Wouldn't that make one be skeptical especially when they support any war?

 

[bdb13]

You think that a think tank that's funded by weapons manufacturers and that is a neocon nepotism project isn't pushing war propaganda?

The weapons manufacturers want war to continue so they can continue to make money..

I was just basing my opinion upon what I read there. You should approach anything you read with skepticism IMO but it sounded like they were saying they're pretty trustworthy.

 

[SaintForLife]

I was just basing my opinion upon what I read there. You should approach anything you read with skepticism IMO but it sounded like they were saying they're pretty trustworthy.

Even with things like this?

As Sarah Lazare of In These Times has pointed out, in August of last year, as the US was withdrawing from Afghanistan (1) retired Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of ISW’s board, was on TV arguing against the pullout, while (2) ISW was putting out papers that didn’t explicitly oppose withdrawal but warned of various kinds of bad consequences. (Lazare notes that, at the same time, the CEO of CACI International, one of ISW’s funders, was warning on a conference call that the Afghanistan withdrawal would hurt its profits in the next fiscal year.)

Of all the different people, companies or organizations that could give us similar information, don't you find it coincidental that the very type company that benefits financially from more war is the one funding this and other think tanks?

Have you every heard even one single reporter note that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers when they cite their material?

 

[bdb13]

Even with things like this?

As Sarah Lazare of In These Times has pointed out, in August of last year, as the US was withdrawing from Afghanistan (1) retired Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of ISW’s board, was on TV arguing against the pullout, while (2) ISW was putting out papers that didn’t explicitly oppose withdrawal but warned of various kinds of bad consequences. (Lazare notes that, at the same time, the CEO of CACI International, one of ISW’s funders, was warning on a conference call that the Afghanistan withdrawal would hurt its profits in the next fiscal year.)

Of all the different people, companies or organizations that could give us similar information, don't you find it coincidental that the very type company that benefits financially from more war is the one funding this and other think tanks?

Have you every heard even one single reporter note that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers when they cite their material?

You factor everything in but what you quoted there said they "do[n't] spread untruths."

Is it shaded in a direction? Possibly/probably(?)

But so are your usual sources as is most everything else.

 

[SaintForLife]

You factor everything in but what you quoted there said they "do[n't] spread untruths."

Is it shaded in a direction? Possibly/probably(?)

But so are your usual sources as is most everything else.

If a drug company who makes cholesterol medication paid for a study showing their cholesterol medication was far better than any on the market would you trust that study or would you be skeptical due to them having a financial interest?

Why in the world do we need all these think tanks that are talking about wars and foreign policy that are funded by the companies that make money from wars and foreign policy? That's obviously a huge conflict of interest.

 

[bdb13]

If a drug company who makes cholesterol medication paid for a study showing their cholesterol medication was far better than any on the market would you trust that study or would you be skeptical due to them having a financial interest?

Why in the world do we need all these think tanks that are talking about wars and foreign policy that are funded by the companies that make money from wars and foreign policy? That's obviously a huge conflict of interest.

I was just going off what you quoted man. It's a critical piece right? But they still conceded that they don't believe the ISW deals in untruths.

 

[bird]

If a drug company who makes cholesterol medication paid for a study showing their cholesterol medication was far better than any on the market would you trust that study or would you be skeptical due to them having a financial interest?

Why in the world do we need all these think tanks that are talking about wars and foreign policy that are funded by the companies that make money from wars and foreign policy? That's obviously a huge conflict of interest.

If the cholesterol study was conducted by a third party in the accepted manner such as double blind and their product was shown in that study to perform well then I have no problem with it. In addition, companies “pay” for studies all the time as part of the required method for bringing a product to market. That is not the same as the bullschlitz pushed by unregulated supplement manufacturers

 

[SaintForLife]

I was just going off what you quoted man. It's a critical piece right? But they still conceded that they don't believe the ISW deals in untruths.

The article is titled A Case Study in Propaganda and your only take away from the article is they don't deal in untruths?

Are you not familiar with the neocon Kagans and their history?

Do you not see a conflict of interest in think tanks that advocates and support war being funded by the very companies that profit from war? Are you comfortable with that?

 

[bdb13]

The article is titled A Case Study in Propaganda and your only take away from the article is they don't deal in untruths?

Are you not familiar with the neocon Kagans and their history?

Do you not see a conflict of interest in think tanks that advocates and support war being funded by the very companies that profit from war? Are you comfortable with that?

I've already stated that everything you read should be met with skepticism and that it's "possibly/probably(?)" shaded in a particular direction.

The fact that this critical analysis says that they do not deal in untruths is important as well however in how you decide to weigh it all out.

 

[SaintForLife]

Many companies that financially benefited from Afghanistan wrote a report stating the US should delay the withdrawal from Afghanistan. That's not a surprise, but how did all those companies with obvious conflicts of interest even end up in that group?

 

[DaveXA]

Imagine being so wrapped up in US war propaganda that you are shown that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers and you think that is fine.

Have you ever heard one single reporter mention that the ISW is funded by weapons manufacturers? Wouldn't that make one be skeptical especially when they support any war?

Let's set aside their alleged lack of objectivity for a second. Are you saying ISW's maps and daily assessments of battlefield movements are wrong? If so, why are they wrong? What would you consider an accurate, objective assessment of the progress of the war?

 

[SaintForLife]

Let's set aside their alleged lack of objectivity for a second. Are you saying ISW's maps and daily assessments of battlefield movements are wrong? If so, why are they wrong? What would you consider an accurate, objective assessment of the progress of the war?

I'm not saying that but I wouldn't know that either way because I don't follow them. Thinking they are credible would be like me believing studies that said cigarettes aren't bad for you that are funded by tobacco companies.

Why do we need think tanks that are funded by weapons manufacturers to inform us on the war? Shouldn't we skeptical of what we hear from people or organizations that are advocating policies that directly benefit companies financially that fund those same think tanks?