Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (2 Viewers)

[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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

You left out the biggest part of the equation: Russia having nuclear weapons. You have to deal with countries differently that have nuclear weapons unless you are willing to risk nuclear war and/or World War 3.

So do we.

If the reason we should allow another country do whatever they want simply because they have nukes, then everyone should have them! Then there we'll finally have peace on Earth!

NOT!!!

Once belligerent nations have nukes, they will not stop being belligerent, they will continue to push limits until the rest of us give up or fight back. I say we fight back!!! They need to know that we are willing and able to do so, the moment they believe that we are not willing to defend democracy is the moment democracy dies. We must not let our Spirit and Intent waver!

 

[SaintForLife]

So do we.

If the reason we should allow another country do whatever they want simply because they have nukes, then everyone should have them! Then there we'll finally have peace on Earth!

NOT!!!

Once belligerent nations have nukes, they will not stop being belligerent, they will continue to push limits until the rest of us give up or fight back. I say we fight back!!! They need to know that we are willing and able to do so, the moment they believe that we are not willing to defend democracy is the moment democracy dies. We must not let our Spirit and Intent waver!

Okay. So you think it's worth risking a nuclear war over it. I think that's absolutely crazy, but at least you clearly stated you opinion.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Okay. So you think it's worth risking a nuclear war over it. I think that's absolutely crazy, but at least you clearly stated you opinion.

And I think it's absolutely weak to allow yourself to be bullied into capitulating simply because someone threatens you with nukes. Kennedy stood up to them, what has changed since then?

 

[bdb13]

So it's worth it to risk Nuclear War?

It's sort of a tough question for me to answer, honestly.

On a personal level, I'd probably say yes. Most of us are going to die in the end with it having been for nothing and so at least in this scenario the death will have been for something honorable.

If I was President, well there's a lot more that goes into it and so I'm not sure.. but I don't think I would be in a hurry to appease Russia at this point.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Considering you haven't complained about anyone else posting Twitter posts, multiple Twitter posts, or Twitter posts with no comment I'll continue to ignore your partisan complaints.

If you ever bothered to read my posts you'd see I'm far more moderate and less partisan than you parroting Glenn Greenwald and company.

 

[SaintForLife]

And I think it's absolutely weak to allow yourself to be bullied into capitulating simply because someone threatens you with nukes. Kennedy stood up to them, what has changed since then?

Kennedy also negotiated with Russia.


TRANSCRIPT CONFIRMS KENNEDY LINKED REMOVAL OF MISSILES IN CUBA, TURKEY

President John F. Kennedy was determined during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to trade away obsolete U.S. nuclear missiles based in Turkey in order to get Soviet nuclear arms out of Cuba and avoid a serious military confrontation with Moscow, according to a transcript of Cabinet room conversations secretly recorded at the time.

Although officials 25 years ago denied there was any such arrangement, it has long been known that such a secret deal was struck as part of the solution to the crisis. The four hours of conversations at key White House meetings on Oct. 27, 1962, released yesterday by the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, bring vividly to light how strongly Kennedy pushed the idea of the trade.

When his top aides argued about the difficulty in getting approval of Turkey and other NATO allies for removal of the American-made Jupiter missiles, Kennedy replied that he faced a situation where "because we wouldn't take the missiles out of Turkey, then maybe we'll have to invade or make a massive strike on Cuba, which may lose Berlin. That's what concerns me."

Kennedy went on, "We all know how quickly everybody's courage goes when the blood starts to flow, and that's what's going to happen in NATO . . . . When we start these things, and {the Soviets} grab Berlin . . . everybody's going to say, 'Well, that {exchange of Soviet missiles in Cuba for U.S. Jupiters in Turkey} was a pretty good proposition."

"Today it sounds great to reject it," Kennedy said, "but it's not going to, after we do something."

In a subsequent evening meeting in the Oval Office, which was not recorded, Kennedy, at Secretary of State Dean Rusk's suggestion, structured the secret proposal to remove the missiles from Turkey after the Soviets took theirs out of Cuba, but agreed not to link the two actions publicly.

The released transcript also shows how Kennedy's advisers had to talk the president out of responding positively to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's first public proposal -- made that morning -- that Soviet nuclear missiles be removed from Cuba only if Washington did the same with its equivalent arms in Turkey.

Paul H. Nitze, who participated then as assistant secretary of defense and currently is President Reagan's special adviser on arms control, told Kennedy in 1962 that he should publicly only discuss an earlier Khrushchev proposal that called for removal of the Soviet weapons in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/10/22/transcript-confirms-kennedy-linked-removal-of-missiles-in-cuba-turkey/1596db24-709f-453d-87df-dede2e19b17c/

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Kennedy also negotiated with Russia.


TRANSCRIPT CONFIRMS KENNEDY LINKED REMOVAL OF MISSILES IN CUBA, TURKEY

President John F. Kennedy was determined during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to trade away obsolete U.S. nuclear missiles based in Turkey in order to get Soviet nuclear arms out of Cuba and avoid a serious military confrontation with Moscow, according to a transcript of Cabinet room conversations secretly recorded at the time.

Although officials 25 years ago denied there was any such arrangement, it has long been known that such a secret deal was struck as part of the solution to the crisis. The four hours of conversations at key White House meetings on Oct. 27, 1962, released yesterday by the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, bring vividly to light how strongly Kennedy pushed the idea of the trade.

When his top aides argued about the difficulty in getting approval of Turkey and other NATO allies for removal of the American-made Jupiter missiles, Kennedy replied that he faced a situation where "because we wouldn't take the missiles out of Turkey, then maybe we'll have to invade or make a massive strike on Cuba, which may lose Berlin. That's what concerns me."

Kennedy went on, "We all know how quickly everybody's courage goes when the blood starts to flow, and that's what's going to happen in NATO . . . . When we start these things, and {the Soviets} grab Berlin . . . everybody's going to say, 'Well, that {exchange of Soviet missiles in Cuba for U.S. Jupiters in Turkey} was a pretty good proposition."

"Today it sounds great to reject it," Kennedy said, "but it's not going to, after we do something."

In a subsequent evening meeting in the Oval Office, which was not recorded, Kennedy, at Secretary of State Dean Rusk's suggestion, structured the secret proposal to remove the missiles from Turkey after the Soviets took theirs out of Cuba, but agreed not to link the two actions publicly.

The released transcript also shows how Kennedy's advisers had to talk the president out of responding positively to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's first public proposal -- made that morning -- that Soviet nuclear missiles be removed from Cuba only if Washington did the same with its equivalent arms in Turkey.

Paul H. Nitze, who participated then as assistant secretary of defense and currently is President Reagan's special adviser on arms control, told Kennedy in 1962 that he should publicly only discuss an earlier Khrushchev proposal that called for removal of the Soviet weapons in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/10/22/transcript-confirms-kennedy-linked-removal-of-missiles-in-cuba-turkey/1596db24-709f-453d-87df-dede2e19b17c/

Yes, and there are on going negotiations with this conflict as well. Although, the ask from the Russians are not in good faith. They want the land they stole and more, the Ukrainians want Ukraine. The UN (including the US) want the Russian to honor the Budapest Memorandum which they agreed to 1993 and they have since repeatedly violated. Ukrainians have to believe that had they not agreed to give up their nukes, they would be still a free country!

 

[bdb13]

Kennedy also negotiated with Russia.


TRANSCRIPT CONFIRMS KENNEDY LINKED REMOVAL OF MISSILES IN CUBA, TURKEY

President John F. Kennedy was determined during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to trade away obsolete U.S. nuclear missiles based in Turkey in order to get Soviet nuclear arms out of Cuba and avoid a serious military confrontation with Moscow, according to a transcript of Cabinet room conversations secretly recorded at the time.

Although officials 25 years ago denied there was any such arrangement, it has long been known that such a secret deal was struck as part of the solution to the crisis. The four hours of conversations at key White House meetings on Oct. 27, 1962, released yesterday by the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, bring vividly to light how strongly Kennedy pushed the idea of the trade.

When his top aides argued about the difficulty in getting approval of Turkey and other NATO allies for removal of the American-made Jupiter missiles, Kennedy replied that he faced a situation where "because we wouldn't take the missiles out of Turkey, then maybe we'll have to invade or make a massive strike on Cuba, which may lose Berlin. That's what concerns me."

Kennedy went on, "We all know how quickly everybody's courage goes when the blood starts to flow, and that's what's going to happen in NATO . . . . When we start these things, and {the Soviets} grab Berlin . . . everybody's going to say, 'Well, that {exchange of Soviet missiles in Cuba for U.S. Jupiters in Turkey} was a pretty good proposition."

"Today it sounds great to reject it," Kennedy said, "but it's not going to, after we do something."

In a subsequent evening meeting in the Oval Office, which was not recorded, Kennedy, at Secretary of State Dean Rusk's suggestion, structured the secret proposal to remove the missiles from Turkey after the Soviets took theirs out of Cuba, but agreed not to link the two actions publicly.

The released transcript also shows how Kennedy's advisers had to talk the president out of responding positively to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's first public proposal -- made that morning -- that Soviet nuclear missiles be removed from Cuba only if Washington did the same with its equivalent arms in Turkey.

Paul H. Nitze, who participated then as assistant secretary of defense and currently is President Reagan's special adviser on arms control, told Kennedy in 1962 that he should publicly only discuss an earlier Khrushchev proposal that called for removal of the Soviet weapons in return for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/10/22/transcript-confirms-kennedy-linked-removal-of-missiles-in-cuba-turkey/1596db24-709f-453d-87df-dede2e19b17c/

Let me ask, given the totality of the situation what do you think the limitations are upon what Ukraine should be willing to give up as part of a peace agreement and what, short of nuclear war, should constitute our limitations in regards to continuing to support Ukraine in this war?

 

[efil4]

So it's worth it to risk Nuclear War?

Now or 20 years from now when Russia has annexed all of Ukraine and smaller Baltic states, which invigorates Russian economy thru exports of food, tech, goods, aligns itself with NK, China and India and THEN decides to come threatening - only this time from a MUCH better position than 2 decades prior?

OR do you figure you will be dead and gone by then so who cares?


First, at what point has Putin shown "ill do it...ill push this button"? At no point in his 24 years as head of Russian Federation has he used a nuclear weapon. So does the rest of the world continue to bow when Putin says "ill do it"? Nope. Especially now when his country is reeling from sanctions, close to civil unrest from mobilization, pressures from all side regarding how poorly the "special military operation" is going, how poorly mobilization is going, etc etc.

IF there is ANY good time to call ones bluff, when they have zero leverage, is the time to do it.

 

[bdb13]

Now or 20 years from now when Russia has annexed all of Ukraine and smaller Baltic states, which invigorates Russian economic woes thru exports of food, tech, goods, aligns itself with NK, China and India and THEN decides to come threatening - only this time from a MUCH better position than 2 decades prior?

If Russia just has to say or posture that "we've got nukes and we're willing to use them" and they largely get their way here today.. it seems reasonable to me to assume that, like you said, we'll be back here in a similar position years from now dealing with the same thing.

 

[efil4]

If Russia just has to say or posture that "we've got nukes and we're willing to use them" and they largely get their way here today.. it seems reasonable to me to assume that, like you said, we'll be back here in a similar position years from now dealing with the same thing.

They have done this for decades and the West has said " ohhh no we dont want that so lets talk"

Putin made it crystal clear what his intentions were- return of the USSR ( incl its borders ) - Ukraine was the starting point.

Ukraines natural resources alone would double Russian GDP. Even with Putin and cronies skimming the till, it would leave them with billions to spend to build their military properly in 2 decades and THEN come knockin.

And dont think they wont.

Russians are brainwashed into thinking the West wants to rid them all from the Earth. There is no negotiations to be had when someone has to choose between death and slavery. ( just last week Simoyan was on RT peddling that very notion )

To paraphrase a line from Tombstone...they are "backing their brothers play"

Thats what they truly believe they are meant to do.


to make analogous to NFL- Saints miss the days when SP would "step on the neck of the opponent" - tossing 50 yd TDs up by 20. Now is NOT the time to go prevent defense up by 20.

Its time to step on a neck.

 

[MT15]

It has nothing to do with rewarding Putin. It has everything to do with not trying to provoke or get involved in a nuclear war or World War 3. Is it really worth it in Uraine to risk nuclear war? I mean seriously. This is crazy.

This is one of those times when I think Biden made a gaffe. I don’t think he expressed himself correctly nor do I think he expressed the official view of the Administration correctly.

Trump did this practically every day, Biden does it sometimes.

 

[MT15]

Oh so questioning the US narrative automatically means someone supports Russia? New age McArthysm.

Have you heard anyone give any rational reasons why Russia would destroy their only leverage play against Europe in regards to the pipeline?

You need to acknowledge that Carlson is completely supportive of Russia and Putin. He completely sided with Russia from day one of the invasion. It’s ridiculous to ignore that and pretend he isn’t supporting Russia in this.

 

[MT15]

Also-the US is letting Russia know in no uncertain terms that use of a tactical nuke will not be acceptable. If they decide to use a tactical nuke, the US Air Force will take out the rest of their forces in Ukraine, probably in a day. There won’t be an all out nuclear war. IMO, anyway, but I’m not the only one who thinks this way.

What we cannot allow to happen is the normalization of use of tactical nuclear weapons. This leads eventually to another World War, IMO.

Appeasing Putin now, when his army has been exposed as weak and riddled with corruption is just crazy talk. It comes from people who support Putin and authoritarianism over democracy.

Also-I have read somewhere that there are back channels of communication between American generals and Russian generals. I would imagine there are fairly common communications. For all we know Biden’s talk of nuclear war wasn’t a gaffe but was part of letting Russia know we are taking the threat to use a nuke very seriously.

 

[MT15]

Just found this from Tom Nichols, who knows quite a bit about the subject:

 

[SaintForLife]

Let me ask, given the totality of the situation what do you think the limitations are upon what Ukraine should be willing to give up as part of a peace agreement and what, short of nuclear war, should constitute our limitations in regards to continuing to support Ukraine in this war?

I would think the terms of the tentative deal Russia and Ukraine agreed to back in February were good parameters. But according to reports Boris Johnson pressed Zelensky to not accept the deal. The West doesn't want this war to end.

 

[MT15]

I would think the terms of the tentative deal Russia and Ukraine agreed to back in February were good parameters. But according to reports Boris Johnson pressed Zelensky to not accept the deal. The West doesn't want this war to end.

This just simply makes zero sense. And it completely ignores that Zelensky pulled the plug himself on the “peace” talks in light of revealed Russian atrocities. I am going from memory, so feel free to check me on this.

You want reasons - why would UK, Europe, US want this war to go on? It makes no sense economically, it’s putting Europe in an energy bind. It’s costing the US billions of dollars when we are having an issue with inflation. The only reason is that Putin has shown himself to be a dangerous man with delusions of building the USSR back to empire status. This will involve several sovereign countries who have no wish to join a new Soviet bloc. He shouldn’t be appeased, he should be stopped.

It’s probably not a good idea to take an article from Pravda at face value, SFL. I know you get tired of us (me, lol) maligning your sources but damn, at least acknowledge that your sources are sketchy. The man you quote is also very partisan against Biden, from an ideological perspective. It’s important to know where your sources are coming from. This man would never say anything good about Biden, ever. He writes for a magazine very far left, unlikely to criticize Russia or Socialism ever.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

................................... The West doesn't want this war to end.

Why is that?