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.






     
    For example, today I posted about Special Counsel Weiss saying the Hunter Biden laptop is real and that Hunter's legal team hasn't shown that it has been manipulated.

    There are two separate things in play here, and you keep conflating them.

    1. The Laptop- nobody denies that a physical laptop exists and that it was taken into custody by the FBI.

    2. The Hard Drive- people dispute the validity of the documents passed around on a separate drive after the FBI took the laptop.

    You do understand that the laptop and the hard drive passed around to the press are two different things, right?
     
    Not in our discussions.
    Okay, whatever. I’m not spending any time looking for it. I do know I’ve spent way too much time being called out by you for something being wrong that isn’t and explaining things to you over and over. Like the current laptop issue. It’s stupid and tiresome.
     
    Ukraine's ability to strike military targets deep inside Russia has and upside and downside. The upside is it will help them disrupt supply lines and rear support for the front line Russian soldiers. The downside is it will probably really piss Putin off and we know how brutally vindictive Putin is when he takes a hit.

     
    Ukraine's ability to strike military targets deep inside Russia has and upside and downside. The upside is it will help them disrupt supply lines and rear support for the front line Russian soldiers. The downside is it will probably really piss Putin off and we know how brutally vindictive Putin is when he takes a hit.

    I mean, Poots was already pissed off, so being able to hit targets in Russia isn't really going to change that much. I think it will cause Poots and his military leaders to change their defensive positions based on how they're being targeted. This could result in Ukraine regaining some of their lost territories and gives them more leverage in negotiating a cease-fire/peace deal.
     
    I mean, Poots was already pissed off, so being able to hit targets in Russia isn't really going to change that much. I think it will cause Poots and his military leaders to change their defensive positions based on how they're being targeted. This could result in Ukraine regaining some of their lost territories and gives them more leverage in negotiating a cease-fire/peace deal.
    He's pissed off, but he can get more pissed off. I think effectively hitting targets in Russia is literally and metaphorically is getting hit too close to home for Putin and his rage will grow worse. It's more embarrassing for him to get hit deep in his home turf and it could lead to instability within the population.

    War is easy for the population to turn a blind eye to until bombs it lands in your back yard. I have genuine concern that if Ukraine continues to destroy valuable assets deep into Russia territory, Putin will escalate to tactical nukes or strike one of the Baltic states that is a member of NATO.
     
    He's pissed off, but he can get more pissed off. I think effectively hitting targets in Russia is literally and metaphorically is getting hit too close to home for Putin and his rage will grow worse. It's more embarrassing for him to get hit deep in his home turf and it could lead to instability within the population.

    War is easy for the population to turn a blind eye to until bombs it lands in your back yard. I have genuine concern that if Ukraine continues to destroy valuable assets deep into Russia territory, Putin will escalate to tactical nukes or strike one of the Baltic states that is a member of NATO.

    so then what is the strategy here? Continue to watch Ukraine get methodically dismantled over the next few years and HOPE that the Russians oust Putin and his cronies?

    Hope isnt a strategy.

    We in the west continue to toe this line of "escalation" - for goodness sakes, we have been crossing Kremlin "red lines" since 2022. His greater goal is expansion to old USSR borders. Using tactical nukes, pulling NATO into direct conflict will not achieve that goal. He knows this quite well. We keep reinforcing this narrative that Putin is a threat to use nukes in a time where using nukes will alienate his country to the point of total economic ruin. He would most certainly lose India and China as allies, which would have an immediate effect on Russia both politically and economically. That leaves him with NK and Iran, neither of which need to purchase ANYTHING from Russia.

    We arent the ones targeting, firing and destroying. Ukrainians are. All we are doing is supplying the weaponry. Would it be any different for you if we "sold" them the weaponry vs gave to them? I mean what is the difference?

    Last week Putin declared that any country supplying weapons to Ukraine are a legit target. Its been a week now. No targets have been struck by Russia in any country other than Ukraine. If you are going to publicly make a declaration like that, and then not act on it, then you know that his strategy is one of bluster and bluff.

    Sorry, this line of thinking has been the exact reason Ukrainians continue to be hamstrung in this war.
     
    so then what is the strategy here? Continue to watch Ukraine get methodically dismantled over the next few years and HOPE that the Russians oust Putin and his cronies?

    Hope isnt a strategy.

    We in the west continue to toe this line of "escalation" - for goodness sakes, we have been crossing Kremlin "red lines" since 2022. His greater goal is expansion to old USSR borders. Using tactical nukes, pulling NATO into direct conflict will not achieve that goal. He knows this quite well. We keep reinforcing this narrative that Putin is a threat to use nukes in a time where using nukes will alienate his country to the point of total economic ruin. He would most certainly lose India and China as allies, which would have an immediate effect on Russia both politically and economically. That leaves him with NK and Iran, neither of which need to purchase ANYTHING from Russia.

    We arent the ones targeting, firing and destroying. Ukrainians are. All we are doing is supplying the weaponry. Would it be any different for you if we "sold" them the weaponry vs gave to them? I mean what is the difference?

    Last week Putin declared that any country supplying weapons to Ukraine are a legit target. Its been a week now. No targets have been struck by Russia in any country other than Ukraine. If you are going to publicly make a declaration like that, and then not act on it, then you know that his strategy is one of bluster and bluff.

    Sorry, this line of thinking has been the exact reason Ukrainians continue to be hamstrung in this war.
    I want Ukraine to do whatever they have to do to kick every last Russian out of every inch of their country and I want the whole world to help them.

    If Putin escalates to tactical nukes, that's on Putin. It's better to stand up to bullies and let whatever happens happen, than it is to live under their reign of fear.

    I was just making an observation of how I see things. I wasn't making an argument for backing down from Putin or living in fear of his retaliations.
     
    He's pissed off, but he can get more pissed off. I think effectively hitting targets in Russia is literally and metaphorically is getting hit too close to home for Putin and his rage will grow worse. It's more embarrassing for him to get hit deep in his home turf and it could lead to instability within the population.

    War is easy for the population to turn a blind eye to until bombs it lands in your back yard. I have genuine concern that if Ukraine continues to destroy valuable assets deep into Russia territory, Putin will escalate to tactical nukes or strike one of the Baltic states that is a member of NATO.
    That was already a risk to begin with. Ukraine hitting legitimate military targets that are degrading Ukraine’s defenses is a valid and expected response to a country in a state of war. If you want Ukraine to lose, then you might as well tie one hand behind their back by preventing them fro hitting targets supporting the Russian war effort.

    Edit: I had this typed up before your response above. It's all good. 👍
     
    Graham is talking about the real reason why we are in Ukraine as opposed to the talking points about protecting democracy.

     
    You do realize both can be and are true? :shrug:
    I saw this Tweet from Graham earlier and considered posting it. It's good to see that there is still reasonable support from the right regarding Ukraine. At least some recognize the importance of supporting Ukraine for a multitude of reasons. Our defense budget hasn't been used this wisely in decades. Do I wish there was no war going on? Absolutely. I would love for Russia to leave Ukraine and return home to live and let live. But, not going to happen with Putin so it's crucial to continue to support Ukraine as long as it takes.

    As for the "real reason" why we are there, I can see why Graham would mention this post-war benefit. But the main reason? Hardly. Just one of many huge benefits of foiling Putin's attempt to get get the band back together.
     

    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