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

 

[DaveXA]

You guys are in denial about how many things the CIA is involved in and many things domestically which they aren't supposed to do.

Isn't it funny how the right used to revere and believe just about everything the CIA, FBI, or the military said whereas today it's the complete opposite. The neocon agenda was their foreign policy.

Now the left has now aligned with the FBI, CIA and the neocons because they all have the same goal. Stopping Trump. They believe everything the US security state tells them without question.

Thank you for proving my point. Lmao.

 

[LA - L.A.]

He's either completely ignorant or literally rewriting history. I know which I'm going with.

I'm going with both.

 

[coldseat]

The response to this post that I expect will be something like:

Jeffrey Sachs is a really a conservative who is pushing Kremlin propaganda!

I find his argument entirely unconvincing with a lot of generalizations.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I find his argument entirely unconvincing with a lot of generalizations.

generalizations is one way they like to operatre..

"if you drink too many redbulls, it could give you a heart problems"
what they would try to pass off as fact "drinking redbull WILL give you a heart attack"

 

[SaintForLife]

It's absolutely insane that the US proxy war keeps escalating with a nuclear armed Russia when we have no vital interests in Ukraine. Trying to control the natural gas market in that part of the world or obtain Ukraine's trillions in minerals isn't a vital interest to the US public.

 

[SaintForLife]

He has zero proof, and nor do you of American intervention, or support of the Maiden revolution.

A Russian puppet president got coup'd because he rejected an EU trade deal. A European country then invaded another European country over it.

If America wanted massive influence over Ukraine, or Georgia we would have pushed through their NATO membership in 2008.

I sound like a broken record saying this, Please stop posting stuff on geopolitics.

I've posted the proof here multiple times, but you guys only believe things from the corporate media.

Sachs is a very knowledgeable and credible person and I'll take what he says over the corporate media which constantly runs cover for US foreign policy and wars.

 

[bird]

It's absolutely insane that the US proxy war keeps escalating with a nuclear armed Russia when we have no vital interests in Ukraine. Trying to control the natural gas market in that part of the world or obtain Ukraine's trillions in minerals isn't a vital interest to the US public.

Whereas Russian interests are best served by Trump and yourself.

Why do you hate America?

 

[bird]

I've posted the proof here multiple times, but you guys only believe things from the corporate media.

Sachs is a very knowledgeable and credible person and I'll take what he says over the corporate media which constantly runs cover for US foreign policy and wars.

Sachs was deeply involved in the conversion of Russia into an oligarchic kleptocracy.

I will pass on his “expertise”.

 

[RebSaint]

So what? I also knew this was what the poster would say, because this is what they constantly do.

This poster keeps playing a circular game. Let me outline it for everyone:

1. The poster makes a claim with a bunch of sources that they alleged proves their claim.
2. More than one person reads their sources in totality.
3. More than one person proves that their own sources either say the opposite of what they claim or they prove that their source is lying.
4. The poster then ignores those posts that prove their claim is false and makes the claim again.
5. People point out that those claims were proven wrong.
6. The poster says "no you didn't, show me specifically."
7. People show the poster specifically where and how they proved the poster's claim is a lie.
8. The poster says "no you didn't, show me specifically."
9. People show the poster for a second time where their claims were proven wrong.
10. The poster says "no you didn't, show me specifically."
11. People show the poster for a third time.
12. The poster says "no you didn't, show me specifically."
13. Rinse and repeat for infinity.

The goal is to just keep saying, "no you didn't, show me specifically," until other people give up. Then they claim, "you would have show me if you could" hoping to trick people into believing that the lies they are spreading.

Don't be tricked and don't believe the lies being spread.

If anyone besides @SaintForLife would like me to post links to all the times that @SaintForLife claims were proven false in this thread, just ask and I'll gladly make the effort.

I will not make the effort for @SaintForLife, because of their own constant behavior.


We will all see if this poster is true to their word.

......

 

[DaveXA]

......

The cycle continues. Just keeps regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again expecting some sort of different response. No one other than maybe Farb is buying it.

 

[RebSaint]

I've posted the proof here multiple times, but you guys only believe things from the corporate media.

Sachs is a very knowledgeable and credible person and I'll take what he says over the corporate media which constantly runs cover for US foreign policy and wars.

This poster keeps harping on the term 'corporate media' in an endless loop of copying and pasting *only* sources *he* believes. If discussing these issues is done in good faith, I hoped this thread would get more traction.

Specifically Defining "Corporate Media."

Define official journalist.Define corporate media. I've seen it used in other contexts. I assume it's any media outlet that is 1. For profit and 2. That for-profit entity is a corporation.Is there a distinction here between a non-profit corporate entity and a for-profit one? Is one superior...

madaboutpolitics.com

I'll go ahead and post the salient questions here. I tend to think it's a juvenile way to sully or discredit a source just by parroting "CORPORATE MEDIA!!!"

So here are the important questions:


Is there a distinction here between a non-profit corporate entity and a for-profit one? Is one superior to the other?

My other questions: If the corporate media is flawed, how and why is it flawed? I would argue that the for-profit media is flawed in that it competes for clicks and views, and tends to be hyperbolic.

What makes a journalist or a media entity which is not "corporate" or a "corporation" more credible than media sources that are owned by corporations or corporations themselves?

 

[SaintForLife]

......

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last reply to you instead of just hiding.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my last reply to you instead of just hiding.

There's really nothing there worth responding to. And who is hiding? I just posted here. I posted a thread on defining corporate media. I'm not "hiding" at all.

You not only post lies from others, you lie about what others post right here on this message board. And I've caught you yet--in another lie.

You had the opportunity to respond to that thread months ago. You chose not to. Are you hiding? Let's leave the personal barbs at the door and have a good-faith discussion about why the corporate media is not to be trusted.

I would think that someone who is so invested in using the term "corporate media" would be interested in discussing what it means to use a source from the corporate media, but you weren't interested in having that discussion.

I don't think you are now, but we'll see.

 

[SaintForLife]

There's really nothing there worth responding to. And who is hiding? I just posted here. I posted a thread on defining corporate media. I'm not "hiding" at all.

You not only post lies from others, you lie about what others post right here on this message board. And I've caught you yet--in another lie.

You had the opportunity to respond to that thread months ago. You chose not to. Are you hiding? Let's leave the personal barbs at the door and have a good-faith discussion about why the corporate media is not to be trusted.

I would think that someone who is so invested in using the term "corporate media" would be interested in discussing what it means to use a source from the corporate media, but you weren't interested in having that discussion.

I don't think you are now, but we'll see.

Why would I respond to your thread when you are unable to respond to my posts without including personal insults? I've said multiple times that I won't respond to people who constantly insult me.

When you can respond to my posts without the personal insults then I'll reply.

Yes you definitely hide and poke your head out long enough for some insults or some left wing diatribe that shows you live deep inside a bubble.

When I respond your post in detail, you ignore it and switch to another subject.

 

[efil4]

It's absolutely insane that the US proxy war keeps escalating with a nuclear armed Russia when we have no vital interests in Ukraine. Trying to control the natural gas market in that part of the world or obtain Ukraine's trillions in minerals isn't a vital interest to the US public.

let me see if i got this right....

Russia, which occupies Crimea illegally, and is AT WAR with Ukraine, is upset that their AD knocked down an ATACMS that had cluster munitions over a beach with vacationing Russians?

Over a beach.
In a war zone.
Lets the general public to the beach?

So, what you are saying is that they should have the right to go to the beach, in a war zone, and be guaranteed safety?

Thats the Russians job. Not Ukraines.

And Putin wont do a damn thing.

 

[RebSaint]

Why would I respond to your thread when you are unable to respond to my posts without including personal insults? I've said multiple times that I won't respond to people who constantly insult me.

When you can respond to my posts without the personal insults then I'll reply.

Yes you definitely hide and poke your head out long enough for some insults or some left wing diatribe that shows you live deep inside a bubble.

When I respond your post in detail, you ignore it and switch to another subject.

This post is a lie. I've posted several times without even addressing you are responding to any of your posts.

And I'm not "hiding" at all. Lurking is not "hiding." I read/lurk this board every day.

Per usual, you accuse others of exactly what you do.

I posted that thread about the corporate media in October of last year. You never responded. Others I thought weighed in on some good commentary, thoughts, and more questions. Who is hiding again? That thread did not personally insult you in any way, matter or form. Now my last post, yes probably got a bit personal. I probably got in your feels. Sorry I got so personal.

You're right, it's probably best we do not interact at all since you cannot refrain from lying constantly about politics and even about what others post and think on this board.

 

[SaintForLife]

This post is a lie. I've posted several times without even addressing you are responding to any of your posts.

I was talking about when you reply to my posts. You can't reply to my posts without hurling personal insults.

And I'm not "hiding" at all. Lurking is not "hiding." I read/lurk this board every day.

Yeah you hide, poke your head our, insult and lecture, then go back hiding.

Per usual, you accuse others of exactly what you do.

I posted that thread about the corporate media in October of last year. You never responded. Others I thought weighed in on some good commentary, thoughts, and more questions. Who is hiding again? That thread did not personally insult you in any way, matter or form. Now my last post, yes probably got a bit personal. I probably got in your feels. Sorry I got so personal.

I didn't say you insulted me in that thread. I said I wasn't participating because you are unable to reply to my posts without insults.

Hey Saintforlife, you are a complete idiot who believes all these crazy right wing conspiracy theories. You lie constantly and you are a troll, but will you participate in my thread about the corporate media.

You're right, it's probably best we do not interact at all since you cannot refrain from lying constantly about politics and even about what others post and think on this board.

Yawn

 

[RebSaint]

I was talking about when you reply to my posts. You can't reply to my posts without hurling personal insults.

Yeah you hide, poke your head our, insult and lecture, then go back hiding.


I didn't say you insulted me in that thread. I said I wasn't participating because you are unable to reply to my posts without insults.

Hey Saintforlife, you are a complete idiot who believes all these crazy right wing conspiracy theories. You lie constantly and you are a troll, but will you participate in my thread about the corporate media.

Yawn

Most of these responses are lies. You literally cannot read or comprehend anything past the 10th grade level or just lie about what you post and what others post. You are not grounded in any form of reality here as it relates to politics, and it's rotted your brain regarding what others post here.

I never once called you an idiot.

You calling me "hiding" is implying I'm a coward. I lurk and pick and choose where and when I want to participate. I'm not "hiding" at all, so what you just posted is at best, misleading, at worse, a lie.

I showed you a thread you could have participated in, but chose not to, yet you accuse me of hiding and insulting you every time I've recently posted on this board, which is a lie.

For someone who is so invested in discrediting the "corporate media," I would assume you would be interested in digging deeper and explaining how and why you think (or others) that the corporate media is flawed. I agree, there's a lot problems with the media run by big corporations. Why not try and have that discussion?

I admit I have called you a conspiracy theorist, which you are.

I apologize for calling you a troll. I think you are ignorant because of your belief in conspiracy theories and unwilling to read or comprehend beyond what your handful of twitter handlers tell you to believe. I don't think you're interested in seeking the truth or engaging in others in genuine discussion or exchanging ideas. When you do attempt to engage, there's really nothing there, or it's revealed that you have not read your own source material, much less than what others provide. There's literally nothing much there beyond what you Tweet, and you're not interested in anything else beyond what you cut and paste.

You're not very well read and informed about much of anything.
You don't read or understand half of what you post.
You accuse others of being war mongers and CIA and FBI shills. I've followed plenty of posters from the old PDB board, and can assure you that most of us probably opposed the war in Iraq. I initially supported it then came to oppose it.

and your favorite?

You accuse others of "lapping up" what the "corporate media" slings.

So 8 months ago, I "came out of hiding" to create a thread with the hope that you would engage in some good-faith discussion and analysis of the corporate media.

Nothing. Nada.

It seems you are in your feels about others, including me--insulting you and getting personal. But by your own admission, you support a man for President of the United States who has made a career of personally--and viciously insulting people.

You're right *yawn*