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

 

[coldseat]

You focus on Greenwald so you can avoid the subject at hand.

We are shown yet another person saying their was a peace agreement in place before or at the beginning of the war, but the US and the UK made sure that didn't happen. What's you take on that?

In the video that you posted, the commentator doesn't say anything about the US or UK. We don't know anything about what happened in those supposed talks or what deals where being floated. We don't know why they didn't end with a deal. The commentator clearly says that it was his belief that Putin wanted a deal, but there is no proof of that.

I didn't get anything from watching that video and it definitely doesn't claim what you or Greenwald are claiming.

 

[efil4]

what were the terms of settlement?

 

[SaintForLife]

what were the terms of settlement?

Istanbul Communiqué: "Ukraine's 10-point plan.
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.

Proposal 2: These international security guarantees for Ukraine would not extend to Crimea, Sevastopol, or certain areas of the Donbas. The parties to the agreement would need to define the boundaries of these regions or agree that each party understands these boundaries differently.

Proposal 3: Ukraine vows not to join any military coalitions or host any foreign military bases or troop contingents. Any international military exercises would be possible only with the consent of the guarantor-states. For their part, these guarantors confirm their intention to promote Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.

Proposal 4: Ukraine and the guarantor-states agree that (in the event of aggression, any armed attack against Ukraine, or any military operation against Ukraine) each of the guarantor-states, after urgent and immediate mutual consultations (which must be held within three days) on the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense (as recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter) will provide (in response to and on the basis of an official appeal by Ukraine) assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack. This aid will be facilitated through the immediate implementation of such individual or joint actions as may be necessary, including the closure of Ukraine’s airspace, the provision of necessary weapons, the use of armed force with the goal of restoring and then maintaining Ukraine’s security as a permanently neutral state.

Proposal 5: Any such armed attack (any military operation at all) and all measures taken as a result will be reported immediately to the UN Security Council. Such measures will cease when the UNSC takes the measures needed to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Proposal 6: Implementing protections against possible provocations, the agreement will regulate the mechanism for fulfilling Ukraine’s security guarantees based on the results of consultations between Ukraine and the guarantor-states.

Proposal 7: The treaty provisionally applies from the date it is signed by Ukraine and all or most guarantor-states. The treaty enters force after (1) Ukraine’s permanently neutral status is approved in a nationwide referendum, (2) the introduction of the appropriate amendments in Ukraine’s Constitution, and (3) ratification in the parliaments of Ukraine and the guarantor-states.

Proposal 8: The parties’ desire to resolve issues related to Crimea and Sevastopol shall be committed to bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for a period of 15 years. Ukraine and Russia also pledge not to resolve these issues by military means and to continue diplomatic resolution efforts.

Proposal 9: The parties shall continue consultations (with the involvement of other guarantor-states) to prepare and agree on the provisions of a Treaty on Security Guarantees for Ukraine, ceasefire modalities, the withdrawal of troops and other paramilitary formations, and the opening and ensuring of safe-functioning humanitarian corridors on an ongoing basis, as well as the exchange of dead bodies and the release of prisoners of war and interned civilians.

Proposal 10: The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia for the purpose of signing a treaty and/or adopting political decisions regarding other remaining unresolved issues."

 

[MT15]

Where is the proof that Putin agreed to these terms?

 

[SaintForLife]

In the video that you posted, the commentator doesn't say anything about the US or UK. We don't know anything about what happened in those supposed talks or what deals where being floated. We don't know why they didn't end with a deal. The commentator clearly says that it was his belief that Putin wanted a deal, but there is no proof of that.

I didn't get anything from watching that video and it definitely doesn't claim what you or Greenwald are claiming.

Other people have confirmed that the US and the UK prevented the peace deal from happening.

 

[MT15]

Did you read what he says? “My impression was” that everything was decided in Washington. How is this proof of anything but this Russian shill’s opinion?

And you are quoting Pravda? Good lord…..

It would help if you would actually critically read what you post beyond the first line or two.

 

[SaintForLife]

Did you read what he says? “My impression was” that everything was decided in Washington. How is this proof of anything but this Russian shill’s opinion?

And you are quoting Pravda? Good lord…..

It would help if you would actually critically read what you post beyond the first line or two.

It's not the Russian Pravda. It's a Ukrainian pro-Westwern paper.

You are so deep in US war propaganda that you can't climb out to see anything that contradicts narrative that you have been fed by the corporate media and the people funded by weapons manufacturers.

 

[MT15]

SFL: for instance the WaPo article doesn’t bolster your contention at all. I remember the reports on this as it happened. Russia said it would quit shelling so that talks could continue, but failed to do so. There was no intention on Russia’s part to come to an agreement at all. It was just for propaganda purposes.

Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s lead negotiator, characterized the talks to reporters afterward as a “substantive conversation.” In separate comments, however, he left open the possibility of additional attacks in northern Ukraine. “De-escalation in the Kyiv and Chernihiv directions does not mean a cease-fire,” Medinsky said, according to Russia’s state-run Tass news agency. “There is still a long way to go to prepare an agreement between Russia and Ukraine on mutually acceptable terms. The Russian Federation will put forward counter-initiatives after studying Ukraine’s proposals.”

As they were pledging to stop the shelling, Russia carried out their largest attack yet on Mykolaiv. In other words it was just typical Russian deception.

Also, it’s very interesting how you will post a WaPo article if you think it helps your case, but dismiss anything from WaPo out of hand if you don’t like what it says.

 

[coldseat]

Other people have confirmed that the US and the UK prevented the peace deal from happening.

Yeah, I'm not going to dive into those tweet, people, etc. to see what they're saying and if they have any actual validity. Just as cursory overview, they're still not saying what you are claiming and their are several things that are suspect about them. The WP article in the last tweet says nothing about the US or UK not allowing Ukraine accept a peace deal. Reading through it, there was never an actual peace deal on the table. Just the possibility of one, but the first draft of a preliminary deal Ukraine put up was never responded to by Russia. So there was never any serious hope of a peace deal.

 

[MT15]

From your Pravda article: there were 2 reasons that talks broke off and neither involved Washington.


"The Russian side…was actually ready for the Zelenskyy-Putin meeting.

But two things happened, after which a member of the Ukrainian delegation, Mykhailo Podoliak, had to openly admit that it was "not the time" for the meeting of the presidents.

The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories…

The second "obstacle" to agreements with the Russians arrived in Kyiv on 9 April."

That was the arrival of Boris Johnson - who maintained that Putin is a war criminal who shouldn’t be negotiated with. Putin is most definitely a war criminal.

 

[MT15]

Putin doing what he does….

 

[MT15]

This is a good thread on the seizing of Russian assets to send to Ukraine, there’s more. It’s worth the read.

 

[DaveXA]

I don’t care to get in the weeds with you on conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists can never be reasoned with anyway. They will just pivot to some other conspiracy. I’m evidently a slow learner (heh) but I have finally learned that arguing with you is pointless and stupid.

Conspiracy theorists are extremely hard to reach. They will stubbornly stick to their conspiracies no matter what.

Engaging with a guy with incredibly dimwitted takes on Ukraine is a complete waste of time. It's not worth it imo. He's a Russian shill when it comes to this subject. Completely unserious.

 

[efil4]

Istanbul Communiqué: "Ukraine's 10-point plan.
Proposal 1: Ukraine proclaims itself a neutral state, promising to remain nonaligned with any blocs and refrain from developing nuclear weapons — in exchange for international legal guarantees. Possible guarantor states include Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland, and Israel, and other states would also be welcome to join the treaty.

Proposal 2: These international security guarantees for Ukraine would not extend to Crimea, Sevastopol, or certain areas of the Donbas. The parties to the agreement would need to define the boundaries of these regions or agree that each party understands these boundaries differently.

Proposal 3: Ukraine vows not to join any military coalitions or host any foreign military bases or troop contingents. Any international military exercises would be possible only with the consent of the guarantor-states. For their part, these guarantors confirm their intention to promote Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.

Proposal 4: Ukraine and the guarantor-states agree that (in the event of aggression, any armed attack against Ukraine, or any military operation against Ukraine) each of the guarantor-states, after urgent and immediate mutual consultations (which must be held within three days) on the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense (as recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter) will provide (in response to and on the basis of an official appeal by Ukraine) assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack. This aid will be facilitated through the immediate implementation of such individual or joint actions as may be necessary, including the closure of Ukraine’s airspace, the provision of necessary weapons, the use of armed force with the goal of restoring and then maintaining Ukraine’s security as a permanently neutral state.

Proposal 5: Any such armed attack (any military operation at all) and all measures taken as a result will be reported immediately to the UN Security Council. Such measures will cease when the UNSC takes the measures needed to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Proposal 6: Implementing protections against possible provocations, the agreement will regulate the mechanism for fulfilling Ukraine’s security guarantees based on the results of consultations between Ukraine and the guarantor-states.

Proposal 7: The treaty provisionally applies from the date it is signed by Ukraine and all or most guarantor-states. The treaty enters force after (1) Ukraine’s permanently neutral status is approved in a nationwide referendum, (2) the introduction of the appropriate amendments in Ukraine’s Constitution, and (3) ratification in the parliaments of Ukraine and the guarantor-states.

Proposal 8: The parties’ desire to resolve issues related to Crimea and Sevastopol shall be committed to bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for a period of 15 years. Ukraine and Russia also pledge not to resolve these issues by military means and to continue diplomatic resolution efforts.

Proposal 9: The parties shall continue consultations (with the involvement of other guarantor-states) to prepare and agree on the provisions of a Treaty on Security Guarantees for Ukraine, ceasefire modalities, the withdrawal of troops and other paramilitary formations, and the opening and ensuring of safe-functioning humanitarian corridors on an ongoing basis, as well as the exchange of dead bodies and the release of prisoners of war and interned civilians.

Proposal 10: The parties consider it possible to hold a meeting between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia for the purpose of signing a treaty and/or adopting political decisions regarding other remaining unresolved issues."

Where, in that 10 point plan, does it redress the illegal annexation of Crimea or the Donna's?
It doesn't. Which is a non starter. Russia doesn't get to invade sovereign neighbors, then get bogged down in a widely resource consuming conflict, and claim the area as theirs.
Reliance on the UNSC? Seriously. Guess who has a seat on the UNSC WITH veto power? (Hint ...it's not Ukraine)

Good grief. I can see why Russia wants to paint the failed negotiations on the West.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

it's funny that SFL believes Russia will settle for anything other than 100% control of Ukraine. and it's also funny he thinks Putin will stop there and be content..

 

[efil4]

Engaging with a guy with incredibly dimwitted takes on Ukraine is a complete waste of time. It's not worth it imo. He's a Russian shill when it comes to this subject. Completely unserious.

His complete and utter disdain for anything "government" (US) is so deep, that he can't even see the forest for the trees. He simply stops at whatever earliest point that aligns with his. It's quite unbelievable that someone is so disenchanted with the United States that he is willing to parrot Russian talking points that directly go against everything this country stands for.

We have social media to blame. He only posts tweets from folks that align with his ideas. Case in point he supplied the 10 point plan. Never once questioning any one of the proposed 10 points. So either he is legit ignorant to the entire situation or he is purposefully and willingly ignorant.

Blinded by his total lack of respect for anything that doesn't line up with his thoughts he posts tweets that have been targeting him (and folks like him ) for a long time now.

He doesn't even realize he has been manipulated.

 

[SaintForLife]

it's funny that SFL believes Russia will settle for anything other than 100% control of Ukraine. and it's also funny he thinks Putin will stop there and be content..

Do you think Putin's plan will include attacking NATO countries? What will he do next?

 

[SaintForLife]

Engaging with a guy with incredibly dimwitted takes on Ukraine is a complete waste of time. It's not worth it imo. He's a Russian shill when it comes to this subject. Completely unserious.

Says the guy who slurps up US war propaganda like he's dying of thirst.