Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (3 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

 

[DaveXA]

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?

I hear what you're saying, but I haven't ever read anything that would give me reason to doubt the facts being presented in terms the situation on the war. The battle lines are pretty well agreed on for the most part, and the daily reports are pretty matter of fact.

What all of that means in terms of the direction the war is heading can be debated, but by nearly all accounts, no one expected Ukraine being able to hold off the Russian army as long as they have. Not only holding them off, but regaining thousands of square miles of lost territory. The pace has certainly slowed, but that's as much due to the Russians digging into entrenched positions that are difficult to root out and them reinforcing with more and more cannon fodder.

Russia is in a pickle because this SMO has not gone anywhere near to plan and has clearly been an egg on Putin's face.

 

[SaintForLife]

Give me some time and I'll respond..

No rush, but have you had time to think about your response?

 

[bdb13]

No rush, but have you had time to think about your response?

I figured you would get a notification but I put my response over in the other thread a couple of days ago https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...ress-and-now-what.108053/page-241#post-431628

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

Except this is a third-party outlet directly stating that ISW does not deal in falsehoods. The issue isn't who funds/owns/runs ISW. The issue is your demonstrated lack of critical thinking sills.

 

[SaintForLife]

Except this is a third-party outlet directly stating that ISW does not deal in falsehoods. The issue isn't who funds/owns/runs ISW. The issue is your demonstrated lack of critical thinking sills.

The article is titled "A Case Study in American Propaganda" and your only take away was that the author said it didn't deal in falsehoods?

I don't expect a direct answer but, should a think tank that's funded by weapons manufacturers be considered credible when they give us information or opinions that would benefit them financially?

Do you think studies paid for by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't that bad for us are credible?

 

[DaveXA]

I thought AFU wasn't making any progress?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The article is titled "A Case Study in American Propaganda" and your only take away was that the author said it didn't deal in falsehoods?

Not at all. I am pointing out the part of the article you continue to ignore.

I don't expect a direct answer but, should a think tank that's funded by weapons manufacturers be considered credible when they give us information or opinions that would benefit them financially?

First, there is a giant difference between information and opinions. I don't blindly trust anyone's opinions, and I can't recall ever agreeing with every single opinion offered by an individual or group.

As for information, all that matters is if the information is true and accurate or if it is false and inaccurate.

Do you think studies paid for by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't that bad for us are credible?

No, see above. We know that smoking is harmful, so we know that those reports would be full of false, inaccurate information.

 

[SaintForLife]

First, there is a giant difference between information and opinions. I don't blindly trust anyone's opinions, and I can't recall ever agreeing with every single opinion offered by an individual or group.

As for information, all that matters is if the information is true and accurate or if it is false and inaccurate.

As I predicted, you wouldn't answer the question.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

As I predicted, you wouldn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter who funds it if the information is verifiably true. Do you think accurate, truthful information should be dismissed because it comes from a source you consider to be biased?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I thought AFU wasn't making any progress?

that's just what the weapons manufacturers want you to believe..

 

[MT15]

As I predicted, you wouldn't answer the question.

People who live in glass houses really shouldn‘t throw stones.

 

[DaveXA]

that's just what the weapons manufacturers want you to believe..

Oh, my bad.

 

[SaintForLife]

People who live in glass houses really shouldn‘t throw stones.

That's hilarious coming from you considering how many vague posts where you refuse to specifically comment on something because you don't have time despite having the time to post her multiple times daily.

For example, you still haven't said why what Musk said was supposedly antisemitic.

 

[SaintForLife]

that's just what the weapons manufacturers want you to believe..

Admit it. You guys had no idea the ISW was funded by weapons manufacturers.

 

[bird]

Admit it. You guys had no idea the ISW was funded by weapons manufacturers.

Irrelevant. Source is only important when the information is disinformation. Every piece of information put forth must be examined for truth. Even stopped clocks are correct twice a day. I have little to no use for the Kristols but they have been correct, iirc, regarding the [Mod edit: Partisan Trigger].

 

[MT15]

That's hilarious coming from you considering how many vague posts where you refuse to specifically comment on something because you don't have time despite having the time to post her multiple times daily.

For example, you still haven't said why what Musk said was supposedly antisemitic.

Except that I have, twice. Meanwhile you haven’t answered multiple questions from me. But let’s keep the issues in the threads where they belong.

 

[DaveXA]

Admit it. You guys had no idea the ISW was funded by weapons manufacturers.

You keep harping on this when it's been explained multiple that nothing has disproven their reporting on the progress AFU has made from the beginning of the war. You even admitted as much.

How they're funded is irrelevant if what they're reporting is accurate.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

We need to continue supporting Ukraine.

White House Warns Ukraine Aid Is Running Out, Pressing Congress for More

The warning, in a letter to congressional leaders, comes as Republican support for funding Kyiv’s war effort is waning, and an emergency funding package is stalled in Congress.

www.nytimes.com

P.S: I should add that support for Israel doesn't mean we can stop supporting Ukraine. We need to support both.