Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
12,129
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.






 
Y’all are missing his point. Remember, this is the same person who bashes the us for Iraq and every other policy as imperialism. He’s a proud isolationist. Remember that.

Now, he’s suggesting that if china and Mexico forms a defensive alliance, the us, like Russia with Ukraine, has the right to initiate an unprovoked war against Mexico. Right? Another Iraq, that he opposes, but thinks, we can repeat with Mexico. Wtf……the intelligence behind that logic is dizzying me. I mean, he’s putting himself in putin’s mind, and apologizing for it.

And is it strange that Putin invites Californian and Texan separatist to Moscow, encourages them, and wedidnt beat an eye lash? But when Hillary makes a speech about human rights and encouraging democracy, putin goes ballistic and accuse her of instigating insurrections. Or how Putin promises he will not invade Ukraine all the way up to his announcement that he had initiated his special military operation? So, instead of putting ourselves in putin’s mind, let’s view it from the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and, lol, Armenia. Let’s do a mental exercise. Which of those countries were attacked by russia, and which had nato protection. Armenia, thought they had a special relationship with Putin and was protected. So they started a war w Azerbaijan. They won the first, but once Azerbaijan discovered vast oil and natural gas fields and refused to transit thru Russia, they became wealthy. Started a war against Armenia. Armenia begged Putin for help, but nope. Now Armenia is cussing Putin out. Of course it’s a little more complex, but the moral is, who the hell views it from putin’s perspective, and apologizes for him?

Well said.
 
Mexico and US relations just too symbiotic. Mexico would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It would never ever happen. They rely on US way too much.

Hence why the US is regarded as the economic superpower.

Toss in the freedoms we enjoy, and you have a built in defense against others attempting to befriend our neighbors.

Oh and it's quite apparent neither want to be communist.

So dude, before you post, just gaze down and verify those laces aren't tied together. It's getting sad.
Y’all are missing his point. Remember, this is the same person who bashes the us for Iraq and every other policy as imperialism. He’s a proud isolationist. Remember that.

Now, he’s suggesting that if china and Mexico forms a defensive alliance, the us, like Russia with Ukraine, has the right to initiate an unprovoked war against Mexico. Right? Another Iraq, that he opposes, but thinks, we can repeat with Mexico. Wtf……the intelligence behind that logic is dizzying me. I mean, he’s putting himself in putin’s mind, and apologizing for it.

And is it strange that Putin invites Californian and Texan separatist to Moscow, encourages them, and wedidnt beat an eye lash? But when Hillary makes a speech about human rights and encouraging democracy, putin goes ballistic and accuse her of instigating insurrections. Or how Putin promises he will not invade Ukraine all the way up to his announcement that he had initiated his special military operation? So, instead of putting ourselves in putin’s mind, let’s view it from the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and, lol, Armenia. Let’s do a mental exercise. Which of those countries were attacked by russia, and which had nato protection. Armenia, thought they had a special relationship with Putin and was protected. So they started a war w Azerbaijan. They won the first, but once Azerbaijan discovered vast oil and natural gas fields and refused to transit thru Russia, they became wealthy. Started a war against Armenia. Armenia begged Putin for help, but nope. Now Armenia is cussing Putin out. Of course it’s a little more complex, but the moral is, who the hell views it from putin’s perspective, and apologizes for him?

Edit: this is important. We ve given him multiple sources that the maiden isn't a coup...I mean the us must be really good at it to convince...was it 60%? of the population to take the streets. He still clings on to then"coup" as gospel. Ridiculous.
It's a hypothetical scenario and you guys can't even answer the question lol. That's very telling.

Multiple sources that the maiden isn't a coup...brought to you by the same people that said Saddam has WMD and was connected to 9/11, Trump was a Russian agent, 51 intelligence agents say the laptop was Russian disinformation, Hammas killed Isreali babies, Iraqi soldiers removed Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and left them to die, the Ghost of Kiev, up to the current laughable BS about the Havana Syndrome.
 
It's a hypothetical scenario and you guys can't even answer the question lol. That's very telling.

Multiple sources that the maiden isn't a coup...brought to you by the same people that said Saddam has WMD and was connected to 9/11, Trump was a Russian agent, 51 intelligence agents say the laptop was Russian disinformation, Hammas killed Isreali babies, Iraqi soldiers removed Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and left them to die, the Ghost of Kiev, up to the current laughable BS about the Havana Syndrome.
So instead we're supposed to believe the crowd that thinks Bush did 9/11, the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, COVID was a hoax, pedophiles were in a pizza parlor, Hillary drinks the blood of sacrificed children, water turned the frogs gay, January 6th was a peaceful protest, Trump won the election, and Obama is running the White House?
 


The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.



Someone posted this article in the comment of the above post on X. It's interesting to read now and how the US war propaganda follows the same scrip:

The way wars are reported in the western media follows a depressingly predictable pattern: stage one, the crisis; stage two, the demonisation of the enemy's leader; stage three, the demonisation of the enemy as individuals; and stage four, atrocities. At the moment we are at stages two and three: efforts to show that not only Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are fanatical and cruel but that most Afghans - even many Muslims - are as well. We are already through stage one, the reporting of a crisis which negotiations appear unable to resolve. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of military retaliation. The media reports this as "We're on the brink of war", or "War is inevitable".

News coverage concentrates on the build up of military force, and prominent columnists and newspaper editorials urge war. But there are usually sizable minorities of citizens concerned that all avenues for peace have not been fully explored and although the mainstream media ignores or plays down their protests, these have to be dampened down unless they gain strength.

We now enter stage two of the pattern - the demonisation of the enemy's leader. Comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start because of the instant images that Hitler's name provokes. So when George Bush Sr likened Iraq's takeover of Kuwait with the Nazi blitzkrieg in Europe in the 1930s, the media quickly took up the theme. Saddam Hussein was painted as a second Hitler, hated by his own people and despised in the Arab world. Equally, in the Kosovo conflict, the Serbs were portrayed as Nazi thugs intent on genocide and words like "Auschwitz-style furnaces" and "Holocaust" were used.

The crudest approach is to suggest that the leader is insane. Saddam Hussein was "a deranged psychopath", Milosevic was mad, and the Spectator recently headlined an article on Osama bin Laden: "Inside the mind of the maniac". Those who publicly question any of this can expect an even stronger burst of abuse. In the Gulf war they were labelled "friends of terrorists, ranters, nutty, hypocrites, animals, barbarians, mad, traitors, unhinged, appeasers and apologists". The Mirror called peace demonstrators "misguided, twisted individuals always eager to comfort and support any country but their own. They are a danger to all us - the enemy within." Columnist Christopher Hitchens, in last week's Spectator article, Damn the doves, says that intellectuals who seek to understand the new enemy are no friends of peace, democracy or human life.

The third stage in the pattern is the demonisation not only of the leader but of his people. The simplest way of doing this is the atrocity story. The problem is that although many atrocity stories are true - after all, war itself is an atrocity - many are not.

Take the Kuwaiti babies story. Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators could be sent back to Iraq.

The story, improbable from the start, was first reported by the Daily Telegraph in London on September 5 1990. But the story lacked the human element; it was an unverified report, there were no pictures for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead babies.

That was soon rectified. An organisation calling itself Citizens for a Free Kuwait (financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile) had signed a $10m contract with the giant American public relations company, Hill & Knowlton, to campaign for American military intervention to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

The Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress was meeting in October and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl to tell the babies' story before the congressmen. She did it brilliantly, choking with tears at the right moment, her voice breaking as she struggled to continue. The congressional committee knew her only as "Nayirah" and the television segment of her testimony showed anger and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her. President Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks as an example of the evil of Saddam's regime.

In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was just five votes. John R Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war says that the babies atrocity was a definitive moment in the campaign to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.

It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti girl, coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any more.

 
Your first article is an opinion piece and it’s full of shirt. Just because an opinion is published doesn’t make it true. You do realize that, right? And no matter how many times you post the same BS opinion, it doesn’t get any closer to the truth.

The other is just another opinion piece.
 
Your first article is an opinion piece and it’s full of shirt. Just because an opinion is published doesn’t make it true. You do realize that, right? And no matter how many times you post the same BS opinion, it doesn’t get any closer to the truth.

The other is just another opinion piece.
I'm laughing at you thinking that stating that it is an opinion piece somehow discredits it.
 
I'm laughing at you thinking that stating that it is an opinion piece somehow discredits it.
Given that half of this board is ignoring you and the other half is laughing at you doing nothing but spamming garbage tweets and copying and pasting opinion columns you're unwilling, or unable, to express or defend in your own words, I don't think you're in a position to be laughing at anyone else.
 
Given that half of this board is ignoring you and the other half is laughing at you doing nothing but spamming garbage tweets and copying and pasting opinion columns you're unwilling, or unable, to express or defend in your own words, I don't think you're in a position to be laughing at anyone else.
I don't give a shirt what your opinion is about me.
 


It cautioned that Russians viewed this as a "direct challenge to their interests," creating "fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine."

In other words, American officials at the highest level *knew* that their behavior was likely to provoke the exact series of violent conflict that soon followed.

And they did it anyways.

And they're continuing this reckless approach today.


Link to the leaked cable:
 
KYIV — Wayward entrepreneur Elon Musk’s latest pronouncements regarding the war in Ukraine set teeth on edge, as he warned that even though Moscow has “no chance” of conquering all of Ukraine, “the longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnipro, which is tough to overcome.”

“However, if the war lasts long enough, Odesa will fall too,” he cautioned.

With a history of urging Ukraine to agree to territorial concessions — and his opposition to the $60 billion U.S. military aid package snarled on Capitol Hill amid partisan wrangling — Musk isn’t Ukraine’s favorite commentator, to say the least. And his remarks received predictable pushback.

But the billionaire entrepreneur’s forecast isn’t actually all that different from the dire warnings Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made in the last few days. According to Zelenskyy, unless the stalled multibillion-dollar package is approved soon, his forces will have to “go back, retreat, step by step, in small steps.” He also warned that some major cities could be at risk of falling.

Obviously, Zelenskyy’s warnings are part of a broad diplomatic effort to free up the military aid his forces so desperately need and have been short of for months — everything from 155-millimeter artillery shells to Patriot air-defense systems and drones. But the sad truth is that even if the package is approved by the U.S. Congress, a massive resupply may not be enough to prevent a major battlefield upset.

And such a setback, especially in the middle of election campaigns in America and Europe, could very well revive Western pressure for negotiations that would obviously favor Russia, leaving the Kremlin free to revive the conflict at a future time of its choosing.

Essentially, everything now depends on where Russia will decide to target its strength in an offensive that’s expected to launch this summer. In a pre-offensive pummeling — stretching from Kharkiv and Sumy in the north to Odesa in the south — Russia’s missile and drone strikes have widely surged in recent weeks, targeting infrastructure and making it hard to guess where it will mount its major push.

And according to high-ranking Ukrainian military officers who served under General Valery Zaluzhny — the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces until he was replaced in February — the military picture is grim.

The officers said there’s a great risk of the front lines collapsing wherever Russian generals decide to focus their offensive. Moreover, thanks to a much greater weight in numbers and the guided aerial bombs that have been smashing Ukrainian positions for weeks now, Russia will likely be able to “penetrate the front line and to crash it in some parts,” they said.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely.

“There’s nothing that can help Ukraine now because there are no serious technologies able to compensate Ukraine for the large mass of troops Russia is likely to hurl at us. We don’t have those technologies, and the West doesn’t have them as well in sufficient numbers,” one of the top-ranking military sources told POLITICO.

According to him, it is only Ukrainian grit and resilience as well as errors by Russian commanders that may now alter the grim dynamics. Mistakes like the one made on Saturday, when Russia launched one of the largest tank assaults on Ukrainian positions since its full-scale invasion began, only to have the column smashed by Ukraine’s 25th Brigade, which took out a dozen tanks and 8 infantry fighting vehicles — a third of the column’s strength.

....So, Musk may not be too wide of the mark after all.


 

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