Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,023
    Reaction score
    12,832
    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.






     
    Why is this being framed as appeasing Russia now? America announced this back in February.



    Here ya go:


    It looks like he left out the words "NATO at" in his post. Wow. What a find

    This is from a few hours ago:

    Then in the informal ministerial, this is to focus on events in Ukraine but also preparations for the Washington Summit, which is July 11th and 12th. And in that vein the secretary general has asked that the ministers discuss a range of decisions pertaining to Ukraine. We do not anticipate that there’ll be an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, but we think there will be a substantial show of support for Ukraine as it works to win its war. This will include ongoing NATO support in building Ukraine’s future force and efforts to help Ukraine as it makes the reforms needed so that it’s able to join the EU and run across the bridge to NATO as quickly as it’s able.
     
    SFL, where do you find these pro-Putin accounts?

    Those algorithms (like with youtube, facebook etc) keep steering people more and more into a certain direction.

    if only there was a way to... determine the validity of the material...hmm
     
    It looks like he left out the words "NATO at" in his post. Wow. What a find

    This is from a few hours ago:

    Then in the informal ministerial, this is to focus on events in Ukraine but also preparations for the Washington Summit, which is July 11th and 12th. And in that vein the secretary general has asked that the ministers discuss a range of decisions pertaining to Ukraine. We do not anticipate that there’ll be an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, but we think there will be a substantial show of support for Ukraine as it works to win its war. This will include ongoing NATO support in building Ukraine’s future force and efforts to help Ukraine as it makes the reforms needed so that it’s able to join the EU and run across the bridge to NATO as quickly as it’s able.

    WTF kind of response is this?

    The claim:

    Washington is growing weary of Ukraine and sending a partial appeasement message to Russia

    The evidence:

    NATO does not plan to invite Ukraine to the July summit, according to the State Department.

    The evidence part of this tweet is over 3 months old. America obviously wasn't weary, or looking for appeasement in February because we passed a massive aid package in April.

    You ask for evidence, and when confronted with it start this jibber jabbering.

    I only looked at tweets from today btw. I did zero digging into that propaganda stain of a twitter account.
     
    What has he posted that isn't true? Post some examples

    since you are avoiding my question, ill go ahead and answer it for you.

    His name is not Paul.

    In his own BIO he claims his name is Paul. ( just doesnt go by "FULL NAME") Not an alias, not a pen name.

    Yet if you take 5 more min to dig just a shade deeper:

    For privacy reasons, Paul prefers not to be known by his REAL name. He also feels that the primary focus should be on his work rather than on his identity.


    But by all means, you keep scouring the webs for that confirmation bias, and ill keep showing you just how insanely blinded you really are. You think you are "enlightened" when in fact you are being led by the nose.

    and its funny. like a fat guy falling out a car window way.
     
    since you are avoiding my question, ill go ahead and answer it for you.

    His name is not Paul.

    In his own BIO he claims his name is Paul. ( just doesnt go by "FULL NAME") Not an alias, not a pen name.

    Yet if you take 5 more min to dig just a shade deeper:

    For privacy reasons, Paul prefers not to be known by his REAL name. He also feels that the primary focus should be on his work rather than on his identity.


    But by all means, you keep scouring the webs for that confirmation bias, and ill keep showing you just how insanely blinded you really are. You think you are "enlightened" when in fact you are being led by the nose.

    and its funny. like a fat guy falling out a car window way.
    Gets punked by Julie and led by the nose by "Paul". Clearly he likes certain birds of a feather. Lol.
     
    WTF kind of response is this?

    The claim:



    The evidence:



    The evidence part of this tweet is over 3 months old. America obviously wasn't weary, or looking for appeasement in February because we passed a massive aid package in April.

    You ask for evidence, and when confronted with it start this jibber jabbering.

    I only looked at tweets from today btw. I did zero digging into that propaganda stain of a twitter account.
    Not quite. The state department talked about it a few hours ago.

    You thought you had a gotcha, but really it just looks like he meant to say Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit instead he said they wouldn't get invited to the summit.

    His statement about the appeasement makes sense in relation to Ukraine not getting an invite to NATO even if you disagree with his assessment.

    Why wouldn't the US invite Ukraine to NATO at the summit?
     
    since you are avoiding my question, ill go ahead and answer it for you.

    His name is not Paul.

    In his own BIO he claims his name is Paul. ( just doesnt go by "FULL NAME") Not an alias, not a pen name.

    Yet if you take 5 more min to dig just a shade deeper:

    For privacy reasons, Paul prefers not to be known by his REAL name. He also feels that the primary focus should be on his work rather than on his identity.


    But by all means, you keep scouring the webs for that confirmation bias, and ill keep showing you just how insanely blinded you really are. You think you are "enlightened" when in fact you are being led by the nose.

    and its funny. like a fat guy falling out a car window way.
    I really don't care what his name is and I'm not sure why you think that's important.
     
    Not quite. The state department talked about it a few hours ago.

    You thought you had a gotcha, but really it just looks like he meant to say Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit instead he said they wouldn't get invited to the summit.

    His statement about the appeasement makes sense in relation to Ukraine not getting an invite to NATO even if you disagree with his assessment.

    Why wouldn't the US invite Ukraine to NATO at the summit?
    :spit:
     
    Not quite. The state department talked about it a few hours ago.

    You thought you had a gotcha, but really it just looks like he meant to say Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit instead he said they wouldn't get invited to the summit.

    His statement about the appeasement makes sense in relation to Ukraine not getting an invite to NATO even if you disagree with his assessment.

    Why wouldn't the US invite Ukraine to NATO at the summit?

    Can you explain why reuters wrote about Ukraine not getting invite for the summit on February 13th?

    No, actually his statement about appeasement makes zero sense. It's propaganda.
     
    The Sirius Report is full of anti-NATO and anti-US tweets, and pro-Putin tweets. It’s not even close to being objective. It’s also full of speculation sprinkled in with some simple reporting from public sources. I saw zero analysis to indicate this individual has any kind of experience or expertise in international relations. Took me five minutes to find these two gems.



     
    You thought you had a gotcha, but really it just looks like he meant to say Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit instead he said they wouldn't get invited to the summit.

    His statement about the appeasement makes sense in relation to Ukraine not getting an invite to NATO even if you disagree with his assessment.

    Why wouldn't the US invite Ukraine to NATO at the summit?

    If it was just a mistake and he intended to say "Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit", can you show where Ukraine has been seriously considered for NATO membership? Surely there were overtures if the US is now trying to appease Russia.
     
    If it was just a mistake and he intended to say "Ukraine wouldn't get an invitation to NATO at the summit", can you show where Ukraine has been seriously considered for NATO membership? Surely there were overtures if the US is now trying to appease Russia.

    The opposite was made clear in the announcement for February.

    Kyiv and some of its allies inside NATO, particularly in Eastern Europe, have pushed for a membership invitation even as they accept Ukraine could not join NATO while still at war.

    At a summit in Lithuania last year, NATO leaders said Ukraine's future was in the alliance but stopped short of issuing an invitation or setting out a timeline for membership.

    "We've worked very hard since the Vilnius summit last year to move out on a number of steps to continue to help our friends in Ukraine with the necessary reforms inside their own country to move closer to Euro-Atlantic integration," Smith said.
     
    I really don't care what his name is and I'm not sure why you think that's important.
    Dave already mentioned this but this is crucial to why you are so easily swayed by propaganda. It’s not important to understand who you are listening to and what their possible agenda might be? This is exactly why you have ended up with egg on your face multiple times on this board.

    For all we know this account is a straight up Russian propaganda account. The red flags are everywhere in that timeline.

    Look everyone has some confirmation bias. Everyone. It’s easy to believe someone uncritically if they are saying something you agree with. But you need to also employ some critical thinking. And the more extreme the opinions offered the more you need to pump the brakes on listening without some skepticism. If you quit thinking critically, and don’t vet your sources, you will be sucked into swirling propaganda and that seems to be what has happened to you.

    You need to be able to discern between nonsense - like this Sirius account - and actual news sources that do use multiple sources, that have accountability built into their organizations, that have editorial oversight. Do these practices make them infallible? Of course not. But if a mistake is made they do retractions, and follow up reports.

    Come back to reality, SFL. You can do it.
     

    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