Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
4,686
Reaction score
11,842
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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.






 
Hersh is a journalist who has recently been seen as less and less reliable. His recent writings are self-published, which means he isn’t being held to journalistic standards. His reports have relied on a single anonymous source recently and have been considered a bit off the wall. In other words, his assertions have not been able to be confirmed. This is my understanding from a Reuters article about him.
That's not true that someone who is an independent journalist can't hold themselves to the same standards as the corporate media.

The corporate media lost what little credibility it had left during the Trump presidency. What happened to the supposed journalistic standards for the corporate media during Trump where many of the bombshell stories later were found to not be true?

What Reuters article are you talking about? This is the most recent one I found. Is your assertion that because other media wasn't able to confirm the story means it's not true?

Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. reporter Seymour Hersh said this week that U.S. Navy divers, in a CIA operation ordered by President Joe Biden, planted explosives that destroyed three Russian gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea last September.

The White House dismissed Hersh's report, which relied on a single source to support its claim about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, as "utterly false and complete fiction."

Reuters was unable to corroborate Hersh's self-published article, which said Biden authorized the operation to blunt Moscow's ability to use gas sales to Europe to fund its invasion of Ukraine.
Here are some key events in Hersh's career:

- Hersh in 1969 exposed the massacre of South Vietnamese villagers by U.S. troops in the hamlet of My Lai. His syndicated report was credited with helping end the Vietnam War. His subsequent book "My Lai" won a 1970 Pulitzer Prize.

-His reporting for the New York Times on President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal led to an award-winning book on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

- Hersh wrote critically acclaimed books on the 1983 Soviet downing of a South Korean passenger jet, Israel's nuclear arms program, and abuses of inmates at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison by American soldiers during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

He ignited a storm of controversy with a 2013 article in the London Review of Books blaming a sarin nerve agent attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in a rebel-held Damascus suburb on rebels acting under Turkey's direction. Turkey denied involvement and the United States and other countries blamed the attack on the Assad government.

- He attracted more controversy with a May 2015 London Review of Books article quoting Pakistani and U.S. sources as saying the U.S. and Pakistani governments lied about details of the 2011 U.S. commando raid that killed al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan. Both governments denied Hersh's allegations that Pakistan had been holding bin Laden prisoner and knew about the raid in advance.


I can't think of any other reporters that have broken as many big stories as Hersh. That doesn't mean he's right 100% of the time, but I'll take his credibility over any of the corporate media lackeys any day.

He seems to be wildly throwing crap at the wall in a bid to recapture his earlier glory. It’s sad, but it happens when people get so captivated by early success that they cannot abide a fade into obscurity.

If he is the person you are pinning everything on, you should be aware of what his current situation is.
He seems to be... What are you basing that on? Your overall opinion and respect you have for the corporate media compared to what they say about Hersh?

Do you think any of those corporate media members are jealous of Hersh?
 
You wanted to know red flags - well I pointed them out to you. And you just make excuses.

Not having any editorial control, or chafing against editorial control so much that you go off on your own to self-publish your stories is a red flag. Established media have standards and practices that are put in place to minimize errors. (This is what happened to GG also.)

Using a single anonymous source = red flag. For obvious reasons. Most established media outfits won’t publish a story like that. They will need corroboration from multiple sources.

And yes, if stories cannot be confirmed, that’s a red flag.

I did say lately for Hersh - and everything you posted that was impressive is from years ago. Sometimes people who are widely praised get a big head, and that leads them to think they are right about everything, they don’t want to be edited, they don’t follow journalistic standards, etc.

It seems to me this is the path Hersh is on. And yes, seems is a word indicating an opinion.
 
As for your second article the people you list are NOT the sources. If you actually read the first paragraph, you will find the 2 sentences below. (bolding mine to highlight the actual sources). Yet the article puts the first name large and bold and wants you to think he is a source. That is a HUGE red flag.

“It was drawn up by retired General H. Kujat and Professor Emeritus H. Funke, two of the initiators of the recently presented peace plan for Ukraine. And it is also in connection with their peace plan that this reconstruction is so extremely important.”

It is these 2 men’s “reconstruction” of events from 2 years ago. Not confirmed by any of the others mentioned in the article.
Do you think Michael von der Schulenburg put his name in the article and that he didn't contribute?

The first part of the article is from him.

1000004212.jpg


That's in addition to the other people I posted in this thread that confirmed the same details about the US and UK that stopped the peace deal.

You can continue to be in detail if you want. I could show you video evidence and you would still have an excuse.
 
You wanted to know red flags - well I pointed them out to you. And you just make excuses.

Not having any editorial control, or chafing against editorial control so much that you go off on your own to self-publish your stories is a red flag. Established media have standards and practices that are put in place to minimize errors. (This is what happened to GG also.)
That's what the corporate media had told you to to try to discredit any independent media voice. They have to do that because the corporate media has lost all credibility except to Democrats.

Using a single anonymous source = red flag. For obvious reasons. Most established media outfits won’t publish a story like that. They will need corroboration from multiple sources.
Omg, you didn't type that after all the Russiagate stories that turned out to be false.

And yes, if stories cannot be confirmed, that’s a red flag.

I did say lately for Hersh - and everything you posted that was impressive is from years ago. Sometimes people who are widely praised get a big head, and that leads them to think they are right about everything, they don’t want to be edited, they don’t follow journalistic standards, etc.

It seems to me this is the path Hersh is on. And yes, seems is a word indicating an opinion.
😆
 
Look if you want to believe this somewhat fantastical story - have at it. You believe some of the craziest stuff sometimes.

Who told you that the war is over and Russia has already won?
 
Look if you want to believe this somewhat fantastical story - have at it. You believe some of the craziest stuff sometimes.

Who told you that the war is over and Russia has already won?

He asked Putin.
Putin said "it's over" and he believed him.

Sound familiar?
 
I'm thinking the sanctions placed upon russia have not been as successful as some were hoping

Sanctions are more successful than Russia tries to make the world believe. They are doing everything possible to make ends meet. At the detriment of their future and population, both war time casualties and workforce loss are damaging. That's why putin is betting on this next us election.

As far as their crude export, it's worked as intended. Russia can export what they want but there is a cap to the price. That means they make very little off of each barrel. China is the winner in that relationship. And ours as russia flooding the market drives prices down while barely making cost. And that article doesn't specify how much increase surpassed the $60 cap. I believe it's difficult as the vast insurance and shipping are held by western firms.

I'd say this is hardly russia wining.
 
Last edited:
musing about a possible reason the summer offensive wasn’t as successful as hoped

 
musing about a possible reason the summer offensive wasn’t as successful as hoped



Possibly. But many kept asking "when" and pressuring Ukraine to do something, which the Russians could prep for. Only really 2 fronts, so not hard to shore up defenses.

But Krynky was the surprise and UAF have established positions now their and Russia doin all it can to dislodge them.

If folks would simply Please stop! and let Ukraine amass weapons and plan strategies in private, instead of having to justify by publicly showing/stating what they will eventually do.

As you can see now, since no real "aid" has flowed over last 3 months, no real "questions" are being asked daily.

Which now allows UAF to plan, strategize and carry out stuff like this that previously someone would have wanted to "scoop" the story and publish it.
 
I wouldn't personally say winning either, just not as bad as I figured it would be by now. I can't speak for others, but I figured after they were removed from SWIFT https://www.businessinsider.com/us-eu-announce-some-russian-banks-removed-from-swift-2022-2

things would collapse... ahem.. swiftly
Sorry, that winning comment was meant for some delusional poster.

To your point, sanctions usually aren't immediate. It's an obvious positive reinforcement tool, and the behavioral changes may never come...ie n. Korea. Or it comes eventually like Iran's sudden decision to negotiate. Point is there are other factors like putin's willingness to follow through despite his country's suffering. He doesnt give a rats arse about russians and he has hope...for what ever reason, Maga has aligned to his goals and suffocated aid to ukraine. And of course, this next election.
 
If Biden wins, it might just bring Putin to the bargaining table. Maybe. But then, like you said, he’s completely indifferent to the suffering of his people, so maybe not.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom