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]

Maybe the truth is getting into Russia after all:

Man, Russians love their VPNs now.

 

[SamAndreas]

So this topic can go into the qanon or media thread but there s some crazy stuff going on there.

Here is a link to the transcript of an episode of this American life on Putin back in 2017. Apparently they have updated the transcript with some current interviews...but I digress. This is when I first heard of the apartment building bombings in russia that lead to the 2nd Chechen war. It gives insight into Russians thoughts; it discusses sovereign democracy; and most relevant to the q phenomenon is the way Putin manipulates the media for control.

614: The Other Mr. President - This American Life

www.thisamericanlife.org

Sovereign democracy isnt democracy as one may have guessed. It is an illusion that there is one and how Putin accomplishes this is to allow opposition. He would allow demonstrations for example but it will be tightly controlled. Opposition parties would exist but the issue they advocate would be controlled and dictated by Putin. Here is an example from the story. Putin decided that governors would no longer be elected but instead be appointed. He allowed for discussions and debate but the reality is that the decision has already been finalized. And if something comes out like his fsb sabateurs were caught attempting to bomb apartments, he would not deny that it happened. Well in this case he assasinated the commission that investigated this incident. Still, he doesnt deny that the bombing attempt occurred. Instead, and this why I see a similarity to the q anons, he inject possibilities...conspiracies. So much so that the real truth is difficult to find in the avalanches of conspiracies.


And apart from the q anon stuff, the russians are still doing it now.



Reviewing of the bucha war crime we see that the russians denied it happened. They also said it happened but it wasnt during Russian occupation. They even used the crisis actor conspiracy. But the most ridiculous is that Biden referred to Putin as a butcher. So eerily so that the crimes occurred in bucha, suspiciously similar sounding to butcher. Therefore it was planned. It was the brits that did it.

I find the advent of conspiracy in politics a bit alarming and watching that Nicole wallace interview of julia ioffe reminded me of that this american life story.

"Russian's won't know why the world is so angry at them"!!!

 

[UriUT]

I had a laugh.

 

[UriUT]

Maybe the truth is getting into Russia after all:

It may be. I'll have to find that link where someone did a thorough analysis of the latest polling from the last independent company, which I may have linked earlier. His final conclusion was that perhaps, maybe only 53% of Russians support this war...a significant drop from what the poll concluded. A possibility as you've said. As a counter though, remember that the vast majority of those who uses the internet are young Russians. Those that want to know, will already know about the war. It's a shame though. The two societies with similar cultures each on divergent paths. One realizing that corruption only hinders their future and would lay down their lives for a better one. Even through painful reforms that failed to produce results (the 2 color revolutions), they tried again. I've noticed that many in the Ukrainian parliament are young and idealistic, many of them women. As I've seen, they reflect much of the optimism in Zelensky. Meanwhile, we have a docile society in Russia that can't be bothered. Though they have demonstrations, not enough would lay down their lives for a better future. I've watched a few documentaries on the color revolution recently and I find a dramatic difference between those and what we see in St Petersburg and Moscow. As Julia Ioffe and many Russian experts have pointed out, the system is very complex in Russia; and it probably determines the dichotomy. The Russians do a better job putting out the match than what the autocrats in Ukraine could do.

Here is the one I find very educational about the first Orange Revolution.

 

[UriUT]

Hope the reason the russians took down one helicopter wasn't because of that tweet last week from Mariupol. These actions need to remain less public. Like weapons transfer.

 

[UriUT]

Yep. He’s saying those executed, unarmed civilians with their hands tied were legitimate targets by the Russians.

 

[DaveXA]

Yep. He’s saying those executed, unarmed civilians with their hands tied were legitimate targets by the Russians.

Lol, some people are talking like they're actually Russian operatives. Crazy.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Interesting:

John Mearsheimer​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

Conventional deterrence[edit]​

Mearsheimer's first book Conventional Deterrence (1983) addresses the question of how decisions to start a war depend on the projected outcome of military conflict. In other words, how do decision makers' beliefs about the outcome of war affect the success or failure of deterrence? Mearsheimer's basic argument is that deterrence is likely to work when the potential attacker believes that an attack will be costly, and unlikely to succeed. If the potential attacker, however, has reason to believe the attack will entail low costs and be likely to succeed, deterrence is likely to break down, which is now widely accepted to be how the principle of deterrence works. Specifically, Mearsheimer argues that the success of deterrence is determined by the strategy available to the potential attacker. He lays out three strategies.

Firstly, an attrition strategy entails a high level of uncertainty about the outcome of war and high costs for the attacker. Secondly, a limited-aims strategy entails fewer risks and lower costs. Thirdly, a blitzkrieg strategy, provides a way to defeat the enemy rapidly and decisively with relatively low costs. For Mearsheimer, failures in the modern battlefield are caused mostly by the potential attacker's belief that it can successfully implement a blitzkrieg strategy in which tanks and other mechanized forces are employed swiftly to cause a deep penetration and to disrupt the enemy's rear.[11] The two other strategies are unlikely to lead to deterrence failures because they would entail a low probability of success, accompanied by high costs (war of attrition) or limited gains and the possibility of the conflict turning into a war of attrition (limited aims). If the attacker has a coherent blitzkrieg strategy available, however, an attack is likely to ensue, as its potential benefits outweigh the costs and risks of starting a war.[12]

Besides analyzing cases from World War II and the Arab–Israeli conflict, Mearsheimer extrapolates implications from his theory for the prospects of conventional deterrence in Central Europeduring the late Cold War. He argues that a Soviet attack is unlikely because the Soviet military would be unable to successfully implement a blitzkrieg strategy. The balance of forces, the difficulty of advancing rapidly with mechanized forces through Central Europe, and the formidable NATO forces opposing such a Soviet attack make him view the chances as low for the Soviets to start a conventional war in Europe.[13]

 

[MT15]

Credibility - what a concept, lol.

 

[zztop]

welp

Biden says Russia is committing 'genocide'; Putin says peace talks at 'dead end': April 12 recap

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is proceeding as planned and peace talks have reached a "dead end," Russian President Vladimir Putin said. Full recap.

www.usatoday.com

The war will “continue until its full completion and the fulfillment of the tasks that have been set," Putin said. He said Russian was forced to invade Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians in the separatists state of the Donbas region.

 

[zztop]

also: 'muricans

Ukraine flag outside Kentucky restaurant leads to frenzy of complaints, manager says - News WWC

The general manager of a Kentucky steakhouse said his restaurant has been flooded with complaints after it put up a Ukraine flag outside its business. Colton’s Steak House & Grill, located in Bardstown, previously displayed two Texas flags on the exterior of the restaurant, but switched one to a...

www.newswwc.com

Colton’s Steak House & Grill, located in Bardstown, previously displayed two Texas flags on the exterior of the restaurant, but switched one to a Ukraine flag shortly after the country was invaded by Russia.

Residents of the rural Kentucky town thought the restaurant had replaced an American flag, not a Texas flag.

“People start sending me screenshots and reading hateful sentiments to me from some local Facebook groups,” the general manager said in a Facebook post. “Shortly after that people are calling the store asking me why we replaced the American flag.”

The Ukraine flag has special meaning to Ben Ashlock, the general manager of the restaurant. He told WDRB he adopted a son from the eastern European country and has friends there.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Credibility - what a concept, lol.

Some people are credible and some aren't. Not everything credible people say is credible, but they have done enough work to be considered in their field. I was curious about who he was and where he was coming from to make such a comment.

 

[DaveXA]

also: 'muricans

Ukraine flag outside Kentucky restaurant leads to frenzy of complaints, manager says - News WWC

The general manager of a Kentucky steakhouse said his restaurant has been flooded with complaints after it put up a Ukraine flag outside its business. Colton’s Steak House & Grill, located in Bardstown, previously displayed two Texas flags on the exterior of the restaurant, but switched one to a...

www.newswwc.com

Colton’s Steak House & Grill, located in Bardstown, previously displayed two Texas flags on the exterior of the restaurant, but switched one to a Ukraine flag shortly after the country was invaded by Russia.

Residents of the rural Kentucky town thought the restaurant had replaced an American flag, not a Texas flag.

“People start sending me screenshots and reading hateful sentiments to me from some local Facebook groups,” the general manager said in a Facebook post. “Shortly after that people are calling the store asking me why we replaced the American flag.”

The Ukraine flag has special meaning to Ben Ashlock, the general manager of the restaurant. He told WDRB he adopted a son from the eastern European country and has friends there.

Fork those ignorant idiots. If they can't be bothered to be aware enough of what's happening on the other side of the globe, then they deserve zero respect.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Trumpkins not recognizing what an American flag looks like when they are plastered all over every single Trump rally...

 

[UriUT]

Some people are credible and some aren't. Not everything credible people say is credible, but they have done enough work to be considered in their field. I was curious about who he was and where he was coming from to make such a comment.

I have disdain for his realism take on foreign affairs. That said, he is...or was respected.

Here is an article articulating why Mearsheimer is just wrong.

Here’s Why Mearsheimer’s Realist Take is So Exasperating

Isaac Chotiner recently interviewed John Mearsheimer, one of the most prolific realist international relations theorists of our time, on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. His analysis has turned a l…

tompepinsky.com

And it is a cogent argument, as far as it goes. We can query the analytical system that Mearsheimer constructs, asking “who is responsible for this war,” and we can get an answer: “the Allies, not Russia.” And a policy prescription: “don’t try to mess with Russia’s sphere of influence, and you will avoid war.” But this is an analysis that is only so good as its portrayal of the objective reality of the past thirty years.

Lots of people object to realist analyses because they lack a clear moral position on violence and individual liberty. I share these views. But I also despise this realist way of thinking because it is so indeterminate, and because it leads to statements about what states’ security interests which are, I think, either vacuous or hopelessly subjective.** And that is why Mearsheimer’s take is so exasperating.

At the core of these realist interpretation, I believe, is some sort of mafia world view. We have different families, vying for territories. And to ensure that a war doesn't break out, each families must not encroach upon another's territory, nor interfere when other families shake down weaker mom and pop stores. The strong rules, the weak must do to survive. One can see that war between great powers is inevitable once the weaker neighbors are devoured.

The irony in a realist view, as Pepinsky argues, is that because Russia isn't a great power, NATO has the right to devour it.

Russia lost, and the Western alliance won. Given this, it is not NATO’s responsibility to protect Russian state security interests. It is Russia’s responsibility to give wide berth to NATO, recognizing—as every realist should—that the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I have disdain for his realism take on foreign affairs. That said, he is...or was respected.

Here is an article articulating why Mearsheimer is just wrong.

Here’s Why Mearsheimer’s Realist Take is So Exasperating

Isaac Chotiner recently interviewed John Mearsheimer, one of the most prolific realist international relations theorists of our time, on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. His analysis has turned a l…

tompepinsky.com

At the core of these realist interpretation, I believe, is some sort of mafia world view. We have different families, vying for territories. And to ensure that a war doesn't break out, each families must not encroach upon another's territory, nor interfere when other families shake down weaker mom and pop stores. The strong rules, the weak must do to survive. One can see that war between great powers is inevitable once the weaker neighbors are devoured.

The irony in a realist view, as Pepinsky argues, is that because Russia isn't a great power, NATO has the right to devour it.

I agree with some of his takes and find others quite surprising considering he's a West Point graduate.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Zelenskyy accuses Russians of leaving thousands of land mines in the Kyiv area

Russia has withdrawn its troops from the area around Ukraine's capital, but they've left deadly explosive ordinance in homes, on streets and in fields, posing a deadly threat to civilians.

www.npr.org

Sickening.

 

[MT15]