Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    superchuck500

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    5,462
    Reaction score
    14,232
    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.
    Click to expand...

    www.nytimes.com

    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 www.nytimes.com


    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 www.nytimes.com

    snyder.substack.com

    How to think about war in Ukraine

    Start with the Ukrainians
    snyder.substack.com snyder.substack.com


     
    DaveXA said:
    We'll see. So, the Russians aren't escalating things? Do we just sit there and let them rape and kill everyone? Does that not deserve a stronger, or escelated response?


    Eh, whether they retreated or pulled out, they've mostly left because they stated as much a week ago. Maybe they were doing a head fake and the Ukranians made sure they weren't just posing, either way, they're moving away from Kyiv, and that's good news.
    Click to expand...
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anything about the russians not escalating. They clearly have been brutal and we need to help ukraine as much as we can. I'm giving the ukrainians credit here. They obviously defeated the russians in the battle of Kyiv. The russians can say all they want about redeploying, but its not reality.
     
    Yes, I have seen several threads on Twitter, from Hertling for one, about the Russians being thoroughly defeated around Kyiv. IMO it should be discussed in the media as a defeat, not a withdrawal.
     
    MT15 said:
    Yes, I have seen several threads on Twitter, from Hertling for one, about the Russians being thoroughly defeated around Kyiv. IMO it should be discussed in the media as a defeat, not a withdrawal.
    Click to expand...
    While I agree. Winning battles and losing wars is hopefully not what's happening here. I don't mind saying it was a Russian defeat or whatever. I just want to be sure that we're not getting ahead of ourselves and thinking this will be predictive of what's to come in other territories. Maybe it is, but pushing the Russians out of the country will be a lot harder that pushing them away from Kyiv.
     
    nolaspe said:
    www.msnbc.com

    Opinion | Why some white evangelicals are cheerleading Russia

    Evangelicals are a long way from how they historically thought about Russia and communism.
    www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
    Click to expand...
    I'm part of what some might consider to be am evangelical church. And I'd say 80-90% are supporting Ukraine and have zero love for Putin and Russia. And many of my long-time friends wouldn't dream of supporting Russia who were always considered a "big bad" in the 80s and 90s. Worse now. I don't know about other denominations, but at least locally, here most everyone I know supports Ukraine.
     
    I had read that the Ukrainian Marines fighting in Mariupol had surrendered, then I read that was false. This guy also says it’s false:

     

    This is a good read from an interview of Timothy Snyder. He gives his perspective of Putin's motivation, and it may explain what we see in Bucha.
    TS: Russification for sure, but it needs to be done quickly and using the simplest methods available. Assuming that the elite have been exterminated, then there will be no nation. This will leave Russian-speaking citizens and those who will soon become Russian-speaking.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but implementing a long-term russification plan, as was the case under Brezhnev or Tsar Alexander, would be inconsistent. That scenario will be implemented if Russia comes to the conclusion that exterminating the elite wasn’t enough.

    Even in Russia, there has been no historical precedent for treating the Ukrainian nation in this way. Only Hitler had a similar plan. The Soviets believed that the Ukrainian nation existed and that they could achieve some sort of compromise. At the time of the Russian Empire, there was no concept of a modern nation. And it’s not like the empire meant that the Russians could rule over others, for example, Ukrainians. The elite of the Russian Empire was not at all ethnically Russian and didn’t think in those terms.

    Putin, on the other hand, constantly refers to his own historical and mystical concepts, and what he proposes – putting Hitler aside – is absolutely new and very radical.
    Click to expand...

    And I'm certain that most of us will view the geopolitical consequences of this war. Russia will be aligning more closely with China. However, contrary to Putin's belief that Russia would be equal partner with China in his new world order, Snyder views it differently.

    TS: For some time, yes. Russia’s been content with its successful relations in the Middle East and with African countries. Such progress is psychologically of great importance for the Russians. However, all those efforts will be insufficient to create an independent Russian pole at the global level. Presently, there are very few places where Russian influence would prevail over the Chinese, with the exception of Syria… and probably Kazakhstan, where Russia was compelled to intervene in January after massive social protests.
    Click to expand...
     


    This could've gone in another thread, but a vote regarding NATO seems pertinent here.

    A third of Republican's cannot vote for a non-binding bill supporting NATO as a democratic based organization!!!

     
    UriUT said:


    This could've gone in another thread, but a vote regarding NATO seems pertinent here.

    A third of Republican's cannot vote for a non-binding bill supporting NATO as a democratic based organization!!!

    Click to expand...

    That's only semi-surprising because a lot of Republicans are actually more isolationist than interventionist. Those are ones who view being overly tied to NATO or really any outside governing body because they don't like being told what to do or how to do it. It might seem trivial, but some Republicans take that really seriously.
     
    DaveXA said:
    That's only semi-surprising because a lot of Republicans are actually more isolationist than interventionist. Those are ones who view being overly tied to NATO or really any outside governing body because they don't like being told what to do or how to do it. It might seem trivial, but some Republicans take that really seriously.
    Click to expand...
    I think the point is that these Republicans that voted against NATO, can’t seriously be asking for more intervention in Ukraine. They’re opportunists, not principled.
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom