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

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

When Rusrsia eventually pulls out of Ukraine, are you gonna cry that they were bullied by the UN to withdaw?

 

[MT15]

Nobody can take you seriously on this stuff. Russia has had to replace the vast majority of their armed forces. They are emptying prisons, they are drafting old men. Military age men are fleeing Russia. They have lost a whole lot of their military hardware. This invasion has been a disaster for Putin.

At least half of the ground that Russia took in the first push of the war has been reclaimed by Ukraine. How is that a win for Putin?

So, tell us why we should capitulate to a murderous tyrant like Putin?

 

[efil4]

It's hard to take someone seriously when they use this kind of idiotic argument:

By publicly defending his scientifically unsound thesis, Mearsheimer legitimises Russia’s propaganda and violates the fundamental values of social responsibility that all academics should respect.

Mearsheimer was right. Everything he said in the video I posted above from 2015 has happened.

its not idiotic in the least. He is legitimizing propaganda under the guise of "international relations studies/scholar"

but when you look into his back ground, you find that he developed his own theory of "offensive realism"
Do yourself a favor and go read about "offensive realism"

You keep tripping over your own shoelaces time and time again...i figure at some point you will get tired of falling flat on your face and tie them.

 

[SaintForLife]

its not idiotic in the least. He is legitimizing propaganda under the guise of "international relations studies/scholar"

but when you look into his back ground, you find that he developed his own theory of "offensive realism"
Do yourself a favor and go read about "offensive realism"

You keep tripping over your own shoelaces time and time again...i figure at some point you will get tired of falling flat on your face and tie them.

Mearsheimer was right.

 

[SaintForLife]

When Rusrsia eventually pulls out of Ukraine, are you gonna cry that they were bullied by the UN to withdaw?

Huh?

 

[SaintForLife]

Nobody can take you seriously on this stuff. Russia has had to replace the vast majority of their armed forces. They are emptying prisons, they are drafting old men. Military age men are fleeing Russia. They have lost a whole lot of their military hardware. This invasion has been a disaster for Putin.

At least half of the ground that Russia took in the first push of the war has been reclaimed by Ukraine. How is that a win for Putin?

So, tell us why we should capitulate to a murderous tyrant like Putin?

I see you are still in denial about where the war is now. I'm bet that if you keep the hope alive that Ukraine might win by 2050 at their current pace.

 

[MT15]

Here is the main part of the criticism of Mearsheimer’s theory.

Most importantly, scholars have questioned the theory's empirical validity and prediction ability, which in turn can negatively affect the validity of offensive neorealism's prescriptions for state behavior in international politics. In addition to mentioning the theory's failure to account for Japan's 20th century territorial acquisitions, NATO's continuation or Germany's non-achievement of regional hegemonyin the post-Cold war era,[58][62] they have also expressed serious doubts regarding offensive neorealism views on China's rising power and U.S. regional hegemony. According to them, there is no reason to believe that China as a rational power wanting to ensure its survival will seek hegemony rather than rely on cooperative mechanisms.[63][64]

They similarly contradict Mearsheimer's arguments regarding the United States. Firstly, weak opposition or balancing inefficiencies rather than geographical constraints are taken as explanations for the uniqueness of the United States' regional hegemonic position.[65][66]

Toft and Layne go a step further by asserting that Mearsheimer misjudges the United States as a regional hegemon engaged in offshore balancing. Instead of being a regional hegemon with the strategic aim of dominating the Western hemisphere while preventing the rise of peer competitors in Europe and Northeast Asia, these scholars believe that empirical data points to the fact that the United States has sought and achieved global hegemony, which in turn biases Mearsheimer's predictions regarding future U.S. strategic behavior, mainly in terms of its military involvement overseas.[67][68]

I see you are still in denial about where the war is now. I'm bet that if you keep the hope alive that Ukraine might win by 2050 at their current pace.

What did I say that wasn’t true?

 

[SaintForLife]

Here is the main part of the criticism of Mearsheimer’s theory.

Most importantly, scholars have questioned the theory's empirical validity and prediction ability, which in turn can negatively affect the validity of offensive neorealism's prescriptions for state behavior in international politics. In addition to mentioning the theory's failure to account for Japan's 20th century territorial acquisitions, NATO's continuation or Germany's non-achievement of regional hegemonyin the post-Cold war era,[58][62] they have also expressed serious doubts regarding offensive neorealism views on China's rising power and U.S. regional hegemony. According to them, there is no reason to believe that China as a rational power wanting to ensure its survival will seek hegemony rather than rely on cooperative mechanisms.[63][64]

They similarly contradict Mearsheimer's arguments regarding the United States. Firstly, weak opposition or balancing inefficiencies rather than geographical constraints are taken as explanations for the uniqueness of the United States' regional hegemonic position.[65][66]

Toft and Layne go a step further by asserting that Mearsheimer misjudges the United States as a regional hegemon engaged in offshore balancing. Instead of being a regional hegemon with the strategic aim of dominating the Western hemisphere while preventing the rise of peer competitors in Europe and Northeast Asia, these scholars believe that empirical data points to the fact that the United States has sought and achieved global hegemony, which in turn biases Mearsheimer's predictions regarding future U.S. strategic behavior, mainly in terms of its military involvement overseas.[67][68]

I disagree and if you listen to what he said years ago he accurately predicted what would happen.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring his remarks that I posted. He was right

What did I say that wasn’t true?

That Russia had to replace most of their armed forces. There is no evidence that is the case. An anonymous source is what you are basing that claim on.

And you making it seem like Russia has been drastically weakened and that the war isn't basically over.

 

[bird]

I was just wondering because he sounds about as credible as the report you posted from Digital Forensic Research Lab about the supposed Russian influence on TikTok.

It's hard to tell what sources you post that aren't funded by governments, weapons manufacturers, intelligence services or censorship advocates.

As opposed to Chinese influence on Tik Tok?

it is hard to tell really anythin

It's hard to take someone seriously when they use this kind of idiotic argument:

By publicly defending his scientifically unsound thesis, Mearsheimer legitimises Russia’s propaganda and violates the fundamental values of social responsibility that all academics should respect.

Mearsheimer was right. Everything he said in the video I posted above from 2015 has happened.

Who provoked Putin to INVADE Ukraine? Nobody. He invaded Crimea. Trump met with Putin and went in with knee pads and chapstick.

Whose part are you taking? Von Ribbentrop’s or Molotov’s? Please don’t put on an anti-war outfit. It looks awful on you.

 

[MT15]

That Russia had to replace most of their armed forces. There is no evidence that is the case. An anonymous source is what you are basing that claim on.

Reuters is reporting it based on a declassified intelligence report. It’s not as shaky as you want it to be. From Reuters:

“A declassified U.S. intelligence report assessed that the Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 dead and injured troops, or nearly 90% of the personnel it had when the conflict began, a source familiar with the intelligence said on Tuesday.

The report also assessed that Moscow's losses in personnel and armored vehicles to Ukraine's military have set back Russia’s military modernization by 18 years, the source said.”

What is your source and what number of casualties do you think Russia has sustained?

 

[coldseat]

Do yall not do any digging about these organizations that keep getting things wrong?

To be fair, you didn't do any digging either. You just read some Matt Taibbi tweets (I'm assuming you read them all) and then reposted them here.

 

[MT15]

Look what I found, with a little bit of digging.

“Putin made the admission during an annual four-hour press conference in Moscow on Friday. The purported losses would be orders of magnitude beyond those previously claimed by Russia, with the Kremlin having only officially admitted to around 6,000 troop deaths.

The newly claimed losses—which could include deaths, major injuries or deployments away from the battlefield—were calculated in a post on the "Maps and Arrows" Telegram account of Russian militaryanalyst Ian Matveev.

"Russia lost 360,000 people in the war, according to Putin," Matveev wrote. "244 thousand mobilized. 486 thousand volunteers. And there are only 617 thousand at the front. Entertaining military mathematics from Putin.

"The losses were 113 thousand people," he continued. "But there was also the invasion group and those who were recruited before mobilization. And this is around 250 thousand. That is, Putin literally admitted irretrievable losses in the amount of 363 thousand people."

“The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine claimed in a Facebook post on Wednesday that Russia had lost 342,800 troops since first launching its invasion on February 24, 2022. The U.K. military also estimated in mid-November that 302,000 Russian personnel had been lost.”

Putin admits Russia has suffered huge losses in Ukraine

"Putin literally admitted irretrievable losses in the amount of 363 thousand people," said Russian military analyst Ian Matveev.

www.newsweek.com

 

[efil4]

Mearsheimer was right.

So is a broken clock twice a day.

What he posited in 2014 wasn't some earth shattering pontificating. He was following Russian tactics and was feeding the narrative since then.

There is a term for folks like him inside the Kremlin...useful idiots.

We seem to have several within the US that keep pushing the load for Putin. And he just sits back and waits. You haven't a single clue about Putin/Russia and the lengths they will go to sow discord anywhere they feel the need to destabilize.

Very uninformed and you are easily manipulated.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

more Tweets (that he actually won't read in full) to follow..

 

[brandon]

I see you are still in denial about where the war is now. I'm bet that if you keep the hope alive that Ukraine might win by 2050 at their current pace.

So how long will it take the mighty Russian army to win?

Early estimates were less than a week.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So how long will it take the mighty Russian army to win?

Early estimates were less than a week.

Mighty Russian army doesn't win war. War wins mighty Russian army.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So how long will it take the mighty Russian army to win?

Early estimates were less than a week.

well, SFL said thats not true...

 

[MT15]

This thread is interesting. Much more if you follow the link.