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

 

[efil4]

Yes. But to clarify: The documentary covers the relationship between Nuclear weapons and the Cold War, not just the end of the Cold War itself.

yes - however Ep 5 thru 9 go from 80s thru current- which also gives a good overview on how we got to this point ( Russia/Ukraine )

I actually implored anyone on the EE to watch- specific to those episodes. And i agree on one tenant, the US did not do enough post 1991 Soviet collapse to help them transition from communist economy to free enterprise economy which set the stage for massive poverty and the "oligarchs" who basically had the werewithall to come in a purchase all state owned enterprises that were valuable moving forward. ( oil/gas, factories ( from steel to plastics to whatever ) etc etc )

 

[SaintForLife]

Nothing posted by SaintForLife actually shows what SaintForLIfe claims it shows, except for when the source he posts is flat out lying.

Be specific and state what I said was a lie when I posted the US cable saying NATO was a redline, the NATO Secretary General saying Putin invaded because of NATO as well as Fiona Hill saying the same.

If you aren't specific in your claim, then it's obvious that you are the liar.

Biden said that in 1997. Putin was just another cog in the machine in 1997. This is the NATO expansion since 1997 up to when Russia launched a full invasion of Ukraine:

So? Does Biden saying it in 1997 make it not true now? Do you think there are other power factions in Russia besides Putin?

Putin is full of BS when he says he invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. In fact, he started positioning Russia's invasion forces along the Ukrainian border before he demanded that NATO agree never to allow Ukraine into NATO.

Luckily we have other sources like the US Cable, the NATO Secretary General & Fiona Hill telling us it was because of NATO.

 

[efil4]

Be specific and state what I said was a lie when I posted the US cable saying NATO was a redline, the NATO Secretary General saying Putin invaded because of NATO as well as Fiona Hill saying the same.

If you aren't specific in your claim, then it's obvious that you are the liar.

So? Does Biden saying it in 1997 make it not true now? Do you think there are other power factions in Russia besides Putin?

Luckily we have other sources like the US Cable, the NATO Secretary General & Fiona Hill telling us it was because of NATO.

Fiona Hill telling you that it was Putins own desire to pull Ukraine BACK into the fold- a fully independent, sovereign state. Emboldened by Trump who thought the same thing.

Putin's war in Ukraine: A conversation with Fiona Hill and Angela Stent

www.brookings.edu

I find it sad that you take Putins word on it at face value- seeing as how his "narrative" on Ukraine has changed from "denazification" to "NATO" to now " saying Ukraine is part of Russia -its ours"

in 1997, Putin was a low level thug for the then Mayor of St. Petersburg. Oligarchs were the "other power factions" in Russia. What Putin was able to accomplish ( that his predecessors could not) was to extort every, single one and consolidate power to himself.

Watch Ep 8 on Netflix- The Bomb and Cold War.

 

[SaintForLife]

Fiona Hill telling you that it was Putins own desire to pull Ukraine BACK into the fold- a fully independent, sovereign state. Emboldened by Trump who thought the same thing.

Putin's war in Ukraine: A conversation with Fiona Hill and Angela Stent

www.brookings.edu

I find it sad that you take Putins word on it at face value- seeing as how his "narrative" on Ukraine has changed from "denazification" to "NATO" to now " saying Ukraine is part of Russia -its ours"

in 1997, Putin was a low level thug for the then Mayor of St. Petersburg. Oligarchs were the "other power factions" in Russia. What Putin was able to accomplish ( that his predecessors could not) was to extort every, single one and consolidate power to himself.

Watch Ep 8 on Netflix- The Bomb and Cold War.

I'm taking Fiona Hill's word on it.

Likewise, in a March 2023 interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, Russia expert Fiona Hill — who served as an intelligence analyst under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump — told the paper that “it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin.” Yet the opposite claim, that the invasion was entirely “unprovoked,” has become such an article of faith in Western discourse that this word is ubiquitous in news reports and official statements on the war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

 

[efil4]

I'm taking Fiona Hill's word on it.

Likewise, in a March 2023 interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, Russia expert Fiona Hill — who served as an intelligence analyst under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump — told the paper that “it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin.” Yet the opposite claim, that the invasion was entirely “unprovoked,” has become such an article of faith in Western discourse that this word is ubiquitous in news reports and official statements on the war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

so find me any document or discussion on the admittance of Ukraine to NATO PRIOR to 2021

you wont. They wanted to join the EU for trade purposes as a fledgling free enterprise, independent and sovereign nation. That irked Putin. immensely. Its why he coerced Yanukovic to back out the trade deal in the 11th hour and caused the Maidan uprising ( not Ambassador McFaul or CIA or whoever you want to believe ) What is amazing is that you think Ukrainians cannot think for themselves- that they MUST be being led by some nefarious Western outfit. God forbid another country exiting communist rule wants a free, open and democratic state, right?

Did NATO Expansion Really Cause Putin’s Invasion?

A seasoned diplomat considers this question in light of his own experience.

afsa.org

its all a ruse and you keep touting that ruse. At this point, to not cause any disturbance in the force, on this point, you are just plain wrong. And we will agree to disagree.

There is enough info out there for one to digest and understand that the "NATO" enlargement aspect was just the cover for his pure ambition. If he was SO hell bent on dissuading NATO expansion ( along with his empty threats ) why hasnt he done AYNTING to Sweden/Finland? They are now NATO. huh.

 

[efil4]

BTW her answer is clear - it was "a" provocation- not "THE" provocation.

hence, the excuse he latches onto because its the most identifiable one for those outside Russia.

 

[J-DONK]

I'm taking Fiona Hill's word on it.

Likewise, in a March 2023 interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, Russia expert Fiona Hill — who served as an intelligence analyst under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump — told the paper that “it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin.” Yet the opposite claim, that the invasion was entirely “unprovoked,” has become such an article of faith in Western discourse that this word is ubiquitous in news reports and official statements on the war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

It's hilarious you quote that article. She talks about them being offered a NATO action plan, aka a roadmap to one day join NATO. Fiona Hill is critical of American foreign policy with both Ukraine, and Georgia specifically the lack of security guarantees after the Baltic countries joined.

Both countries were famously denied entry in 2008.

It's like you don't even read the articles are something.

 

[MT15]

Not to mention the stunning hypocrisy. SFL derides Fiona Hill all the damn time, UNLESS he can take something she said out of context and use it to support his false narrative.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's hilarious you quote that article. She talks about them being offered a NATO action plan, aka a roadmap to one day join NATO. Fiona Hill is critical of American foreign policy with both Ukraine, and Georgia specifically the lack of security guarantees after the Baltic countries joined.

Both countries were famously denied entry in 2008.

It's like you don't even read the articles are something.

There are also other instances of people saying the same thing like the NATO Secretary General and the leaked US cable that included the current CIA director saying NATO was a red line for Putin and Russian elites.

Here is the article with the Hill interview.

Fiona Hill: No, because in the context of 2008, nobody had been thinking through the implications of offering Ukraine a NATO Membership Action Plan. This plan has no immediate effects. It doesn’t involve equipping a military to be able to fend off an attack the next day. And it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin. So we should have been doing something to address this security dilemma all along – in 2008, but also earlier, especially after 2004 and the big enlargement to Eastern European countries and the Baltic states of both NATO and the European Union. When this happened, we immediately left all the other neighboring countries, including Ukraine, in a strategic gray zone. The debates that we're having now in NATO about how to defend Ukraine and countries like Moldova and how to create security guarantees for them - we should have been having them on the very day after this massive enlargement of NATO.

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

The other article has other examples as well, but I know you have ignored most of them probably because you think you are smarter then they are.

To some extent, this isn’t surprising. As the analysts, journalists, politicians, and others pointing to NATO expansion as a leading cause of the war have copiously documented, the decades before the invasion saw countless members of the Washington national security establishment, from famed Cold War strategist George Kennan and current CIA Director William Burns to a parade of diplomats, military officials, NATO leaders and even Biden himself, warn that the alliance’s eastward creep was a fundamental source of Russian unhappiness and that it would provoke Russian hostility and aggression — or even spark war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

 

[J-DONK]

There are also other instances of people saying the same thing like the NATO Secretary General and the leaked US cable that included the current CIA director saying NATO was a red line for Putin and Russian elites.

Here is the article with the Hill interview.

Fiona Hill: No, because in the context of 2008, nobody had been thinking through the implications of offering Ukraine a NATO Membership Action Plan. This plan has no immediate effects. It doesn’t involve equipping a military to be able to fend off an attack the next day. And it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin. So we should have been doing something to address this security dilemma all along – in 2008, but also earlier, especially after 2004 and the big enlargement to Eastern European countries and the Baltic states of both NATO and the European Union. When this happened, we immediately left all the other neighboring countries, including Ukraine, in a strategic gray zone. The debates that we're having now in NATO about how to defend Ukraine and countries like Moldova and how to create security guarantees for them - we should have been having them on the very day after this massive enlargement of NATO.

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

The other article has other examples as well, but I know you have ignored most of them probably because you think you are smarter then they are.

To some extent, this isn’t surprising. As the analysts, journalists, politicians, and others pointing to NATO expansion as a leading cause of the war have copiously documented, the decades before the invasion saw countless members of the Washington national security establishment, from famed Cold War strategist George Kennan and current CIA Director William Burns to a parade of diplomats, military officials, NATO leaders and even Biden himself, warn that the alliance’s eastward creep was a fundamental source of Russian unhappiness and that it would provoke Russian hostility and aggression — or even spark war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

I love how you cling to this.

SFL, is this was such a strong provocation. Why did Putin wait 6 years to invade?

Everyone else in this thread can use some simple logic:

1. Putin invades after coup. So, what caused the coup?
2. The coup was caused by the president backing out of a EU trade deal.

I've said it before, people like you are the people who really drank the kool-aid on American exceptionalism. You can't comprehend a single major world event without America at the very center of it.

 

[SaintForLife]

I love how you cling to this.

SFL, is this was such a strong provocation. Why did Putin wait 6 years to invade?

Everyone else in this thread can use some simple logic:

1. Putin invades after coup. So, what caused the coup?
2. The coup was caused by the president backing out of a EU trade deal.

You always go to the history instead of addressing what those multiple officials said acting like it negates all their statements.

 

[J-DONK]

You always go to the history instead of addressing what those multiple officials said acting like it negates all their statements.

"Why do you always debunk my theories with what actually happened?"

 

[bird]

A Russian Destabilization Campaign Put Moldova in the News

A historical look at the geopolitical vulnerability of this small country tucked between Ukraine and the EU, by Davis Center alum Isabelle DeSisto and Prof. Grigore Pop-Eleches.

daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu

But, no, it’s always poor, poor Russia.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm taking Fiona Hill's word on it.

Likewise, in a March 2023 interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, Russia expert Fiona Hill — who served as an intelligence analyst under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as on the National Security Council under President Donald Trump — told the paper that “it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin.” Yet the opposite claim, that the invasion was entirely “unprovoked,” has become such an article of faith in Western discourse that this word is ubiquitous in news reports and official statements on the war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

If NATO admitting Ukraine is the red line, can you tell me how much time passed from when Ukraine was admitted to NATO and Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Be specific and state what I said was a lie when I posted the US cable saying NATO was a redline,

Everything this poster has quoted regarding Putin invading because of NATO was and still is a lie told by Putin and repeated by the people he's duped and the people they've duped and so on.

Other people and I have already pointed out that it's a lie multiple times. The poster keeps ignoring it and just keeps repeating the same lies.

We all already saw the lies being pointed out multiple times that it's all lies and we all know it's a bunch of lies. We all know the truth is that Putin invaded Ukraine for power, wealth and ego.

It doesn't matter if a small minority of people refuse to see that truth. The overwhelming majority of us sees the truth.

Every time the lie that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion gets told, I'm going to remind all of us that it has been proven several times by multiple people to be a lie.

...the NATO Secretary General saying Putin invaded because of NATO as well as Fiona Hill saying the same.

This is another lie. Neither the NATO Secretary General or Fiona Hill said that Putin invaded because of NATO.

Other people and I have already pointed out multiple times that it's a lie. The poster keeps ignoring it and just keeps repeating the same lies.

We all already saw the lies being pointed out and we all know it's a bunch of lies. We all know the truth is that Putin invaded Ukraine for power, wealth and ego.

It doesn't matter if a small minority of people refuse to see that truth. The overwhelming majority of us sees the truth.

Every time the lie that NATO Secretary General or Fiona Hill said Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO gets told, I'm going to remind all of us that it has been proven several times over by multiple people to be a lie.

...the US Cable, the NATO Secretary General & Fiona Hill telling us it was because of NATO.

All three of those claims have been proven multiple times to be lies.

The poster keeps asking for proof they are lies while also ignoring every single time multiple posters have shown those claims to be lies.

The poster is just going to keep saying no one has proved their claims are lies. That is also a lie.

Don't fall for their lies, because if too many people start believing their lies, it's going to cause misery for over 90% of us.

Putin is actively trying to cause the collapse of our society and government by tricking Americans, like this poster, into believing the lies that Putin and Russia plant on social media and with compromised American public figures.

 

[Lapaz]

There are also other instances of people saying the same thing like the NATO Secretary General and the leaked US cable that included the current CIA director saying NATO was a red line for Putin and Russian elites.

Here is the article with the Hill interview.

Fiona Hill: No, because in the context of 2008, nobody had been thinking through the implications of offering Ukraine a NATO Membership Action Plan. This plan has no immediate effects. It doesn’t involve equipping a military to be able to fend off an attack the next day. And it was always obvious that NATO’s enlargement to Ukraine and to Georgia was a provocation for Putin. So we should have been doing something to address this security dilemma all along – in 2008, but also earlier, especially after 2004 and the big enlargement to Eastern European countries and the Baltic states of both NATO and the European Union. When this happened, we immediately left all the other neighboring countries, including Ukraine, in a strategic gray zone. The debates that we're having now in NATO about how to defend Ukraine and countries like Moldova and how to create security guarantees for them - we should have been having them on the very day after this massive enlargement of NATO.

Fiona Hill: "The world is feeding Russia's imperial delusions"

Crimea is no longer a bargaining chip, says Russia expert Fiona Hill. A conversation about Putin's transfiguration of history, Europe's mistakes and new world orders.

www.zeit.de

The other article has other examples as well, but I know you have ignored most of them probably because you think you are smarter then they are.

To some extent, this isn’t surprising. As the analysts, journalists, politicians, and others pointing to NATO expansion as a leading cause of the war have copiously documented, the decades before the invasion saw countless members of the Washington national security establishment, from famed Cold War strategist George Kennan and current CIA Director William Burns to a parade of diplomats, military officials, NATO leaders and even Biden himself, warn that the alliance’s eastward creep was a fundamental source of Russian unhappiness and that it would provoke Russian hostility and aggression — or even spark war.

When officials say the quiet part about Russia and NATO out loud

Was the invasion about the alliance's expansion to Moscow's doorstep? Depends on who's telling the story.

responsiblestatecraft.org

It’s a weak theory that Russia invaded Ukraine because of potential NATO expansion, but that’s certainly what Putin wants us to believe. Putin runs Russia with an iron fist. He is ruthless, so that’s the proper perspective to consider. He is driven by power and total control. He craves the old Soviet Union, so Putin wants to control the old Soviet bloc. He was afraid that he was going to lose his ability to control Ukraine, so he made up fears of NATO expansion into Ukraine and being surrounded. Even if Ukraine joined NATO, it would only be to feel safer. NATO would never attack Russia. It is a defensive alliance. Just because Putin claims he had justified fear and the resolution was to invade a sovereign country, doesn’t make his actions acceptable. Violently attacking your neighboring country can not be allowed, especially in one of the few peaceful areas of the world. He can’t be allowed to disrupt Europe and the world due to his paranoia. Putin’s authoritarian ambitions are at the core of the war, and that ambition is dangerous to world freedoms. This is like a world war, but we just need to stand with Ukraine to keep it from expanding. Thank goodness Ukrainians are formidable fighters. They can help restore order by breaking the will of Russia to keep fighting. Russia needs to change its ambitions to control its neighbors by force and fear. That’s the only way this should end. If diplomacy can achieve that, it would be great, but it seems more likely that it will take more conflict. It may indeed require Ukraine to give away land for peace, but that should happen only after they’ve decided that they don’t want to continue the fight. We must make the cost to the aggressor high enough to deter any future such actions. So, we need to help them fight on for their land as long as they’re willing. Supporting Ukraine is a just cause, because it is the cause for future stability.

 

[SaintForLife]

Everything this poster has quoted regarding Putin invading because of NATO was and still is a lie told by Putin and repeated by the people he's duped and the people they've duped and so on.

Other people and I have already pointed out that it's a lie multiple times. The poster keeps ignoring it and just keeps repeating the same lies.

We all already saw the lies being pointed out multiple times that it's all lies and we all know it's a bunch of lies. We all know the truth is that Putin invaded Ukraine for power, wealth and ego.

It doesn't matter if a small minority of people refuse to see that truth. The overwhelming majority of us sees the truth.

Every time the lie that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion gets told, I'm going to remind all of us that it has been proven several times by multiple people to be a lie.


This is another lie. Neither the NATO Secretary General or Fiona Hill said that Putin invaded because of NATO.

Other people and I have already pointed out multiple times that it's a lie. The poster keeps ignoring it and just keeps repeating the same lies.

We all already saw the lies being pointed out and we all know it's a bunch of lies. We all know the truth is that Putin invaded Ukraine for power, wealth and ego.

It doesn't matter if a small minority of people refuse to see that truth. The overwhelming majority of us sees the truth.

Every time the lie that NATO Secretary General or Fiona Hill said Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO gets told, I'm going to remind all of us that it has been proven several times over by multiple people to be a lie.


All three of those claims have been proven multiple times to be lies.

The poster keeps asking for proof they are lies while also ignoring every single time multiple posters have shown those claims to be lies.

The poster is just going to keep saying no one has proved their claims are lies. That is also a lie.

Don't fall for their lies, because if too many people start believing their lies, it's going to cause misery for over 90% of us.

Putin is actively trying to cause the collapse of our society and government by tricking Americans, like this poster, into believing the lies that Putin and Russia plant on social media and with compromised American public figures.

I knew you wouldn't specifically point out how it was a supposedly a lie.

You are like a far left version of Chat GPT if you would ask it to accuse someone of being a liar in multiple ways without actually addressing the point.

Good to know. I won't waste any more time responding to your posts.

 

[SaintForLife]

"Why do you always debunk my theories with what actually happened?"

You can't even adresss those officials and documents saying NATO was a red line for Russia so you fall back to regurgitating the corporate media propaganda. Give yourself a pat on the back!