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

 

[MT15]

Every single day, I am grateful we didn’t re-elect Trump. Can you imagine our diplomatic corps having to deal with his level of stupidity along with trying to thread this needle with Putin? Someone whose brightest ideas are to paint the Chinese flag on F-22s in order to avoid responsibility?

I remember thinking we almost got through his term without a huge crisis where his incompetence actually hurt us as a nation, until Covid came along. At least he cannot hurt us in this crisis.

 

[brandon]

"Former NATO commander Wesley Clark explains Ukraine war


Q: Would Putin use a nuclear weapon?

A: If he was losing, I think he might. And if we think there’s a chance a guy would use a nuclear weapon against us, I guess we just need to give up on the concept of extended deterrence. Why would we want to defend Estonia if Putin might want to use a nuclear weapon? Is Estonia worth it? You say it’s NATO, but the cold, hard reality is Putin can move into Estonia and take control before we can make up our mind what to do. Or Taiwan — what if China says, “You come into Taiwan again, we’re going to use a nuclear weapon.” The Chinese have a lot of people, they have a lot of nuclear weapons. What if North Korea says, “You hold another exercise, we’re going to use a nuclear weapon.” Say [to North Korea] “Oh, we’re going to obliterate you.” “No, you’re not going to obliterate us, we can attack the United States — now.” What if Iran says it? That’s the answer to it. It was easy to be the world’s hyperpower when we were going against Libya, Iraq and Syria. The United States has to recalibrate its understanding, leadership and processes to work in this new area or we will lose the rules-based international system, which we’re proud to have established after World War II and which we established by using the concept of extended deterrence.

Q: The ultimate question is: Does the West stand by and watch innocent people slaughtered?

A: I think that’s the conundrum that the administration is facing. What can we do without provoking a red line? And the answer to that is: It doesn’t just depend on us. It depends on Putin. I’d say it’s more than a little unpredictable."
https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/former...r-no-fly-zone/

All that's great and everything, but what it amounts do is that no matter how good our military is, as long as the other guy has nukes, he can do whatever he wants short of nuking America and we can't stop him.

The logical progression of this argument is:

Q: What if Putin decides to invade the USA?

A: Well, if we just prevent him from taking over the mainland US, he might not use a nuke. But if we push back to prevent him from doing it in the future, he might use a nuke in defense, so the best we can do is to prevent him from taking Washington D.C., while probably ceding some territory east of the Mississippi River. If we play our cards right, we probably only lose Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe the West Coast.

But if we stop him from taking D.C., he might decide a nuke is his only option to finishing the war, so we might have to just go ahead and let him take over the US government. We can't risk nuclear annihilation, so it's really our only option. You understand, right?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

You understand, right?

No.

 

[insidejob]

Pretty amazing numbers when you consider the discrepancy in numbers of both machinery and people. And as long as Ukraine can keep winning the propaganda war faster than the RF can win the war on the ground, the better the chances are that Ukraine can actually win this thing outright.

 

[zztop]

US strikes harder at Putin, banning all Russian oil imports

President Joe Biden has announced that the U.S. will ban all Russian oil imports, toughening the toll on Russia’s economy in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine.

apnews.com

 

[brandon]

No.

That was in the (sarcastic) voice of Wesley Clark, lol. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

 

[MT15]

I don’t know if this is accurate, but it is amazing if true

 

[coldseat]

Independents, I'm talking to you .... don't be fooled by Republicans and Joe Manchin's gas lighting on oil prices and production.

Republicans are setting a trap for President Biden. They’re demanding he take actions that will raise gasoline prices — with obvious plans to attack him politically after the prices rise.

In just a few days, there has been a dramatic change in political consensus over how to respond to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Initially, policymakers appeared to go along with the Biden administration’s argument that they should carve energy-related transactions out of their sanctions.

That way, Russian President Vladimir Putin would suffer, but U.S. and European consumers mostly wouldn’t, the White House said. Lawmakers generally seemed okay with this setup.

But then the conventional wisdom rapidly shifted, at least on Capitol Hill.


Now, U.S. lawmakers say, we must cut Russia off from global energy markets. Why would Putin capitulate, after all, unless we block the life blood of Russia’s economy? Both Democrats and Republicans have insisted that we stop our (relatively small) energy imports from Russia, which might pressure our European allies (who depend much more heavily on Russian oil and natural gas) to do the same....
Oil prices have already spiked in anticipation of some sort of embargo.
And what of previous concerns that disrupting global energy markets might harm Western consumers?
U.S. politicians could make the case that higher energy prices are a cost of defending freedom and democracy, upholding international law, resisting armed aggression. We’re not sending American sons and daughters into this war, they could say; instead, Americans’ sacrifice could be economic. We’ll pay more for gasoline — and perhaps other things, too — to help shoulder the burden of fighting Putin.

But that’s not the argument most U.S. politicians are emphasizing. Instead, they suggest there’s a free lunch to be had.
In recent days, Republicans (and some Democrats) have argued that the United States can apply sanctions to Russia’s energy sector while enduring virtually no economic pain at home, and without turning to unsavory alternative sources such as Venezuela. U.S. energy producers alone, they claim, can immediately ramp up supply to offset the shortfall. Big, Bad Government just needs to get out of industry’s way.

This is a fantasy — one born either of confusion about how energy markets work or a cynical desire to set up Biden.
For starters, it usually takes 10 to 12 months for a change in oil prices to lead to an actual change in oil production in the United States, according to John Kemp, senior market analyst at Thomson Reuters. That’s because there are many time-consuming steps involved, regardless of the regulatory environment: contracting a new rig, moving the rig onto the drilling site, recruiting workers and so on.

Already, U.S. oil producers have responded to the recent run-up in oil prices by taking steps to increase production. In January, there were 502 rigs drilling in this country for crude, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Today, there are 540. Unfortunately, any additional barrels that become available from these added rigs are months away.

The chief executive of the biggest U.S. shale oil operator recently told the Financial Times that domestic industry would be unable to replace lost crude supplies from Russia this year. In addition to all the usual factors, pandemic-related supply-chain constraints are slowing down development. Plus, investors burned in recent boom-bust cycles are pressuring shale operators to be more conservative about expansion this time around.

Republicans are ignoring all this. They’ve started arguing — with relatively little pushback — that if we can’t immediately replace lost Russian supply, it’ll be because of Biden’s supposed war on fossil fuels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/07/russia-energy-sanctions-republican-trap-biden/

 

[zztop]

seems like their goal is to cut dependence by 2/3rds very quickly

EU rolls out plan to cut Russia gas dependency this year

The European Commission published plans on Tuesday to cut EU dependency on Russian gas by two-thirds this year and end its reliance on Russian supplies of the fuel "well before 2030".

www.reuters.com

The European Commission published plans on Tuesday to cut EU dependency on Russian gas by two-thirds this year and end its reliance on Russian supplies of the fuel "well before 2030".

The European Union executive said it would switch to alternative supplies and expand clean energy faster under the plans, which national governments will be largely responsible for implementing.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

All that's great and everything, but what it amounts do is that no matter how good our military is, as long as the other guy has nukes, he can do whatever he wants short of nuking America and we can't stop him.

The logical progression of this argument is:

Q: What if Putin decides to invade the USA?

A: Well, if we just prevent him from taking over the mainland US, he might not use a nuke. But if we push back to prevent him from doing it in the future, he might use a nuke in defense, so the best we can do is to prevent him from taking Washington D.C., while probably ceding some territory east of the Mississippi River. If we play our cards right, we probably only lose Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe the West Coast.

But if we stop him from taking D.C., he might decide a nuke is his only option to finishing the war, so we might have to just go ahead and let him take over the US government. We can't risk nuclear annihilation, so it's really our only option. You understand, right?

This is not the logical progression of nuclear deterrence.

 

[zztop]

Not all that surprising

Russia moves towards nationalising assets of firms that leave - ruling party

Russia's ruling party, United Russia, said on Wednesday that a government commission had approved the first step towards nationalising assets of foreign firms that leave the country in the wake of economic sanctions over Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

 

[brandon]

This is not the logical progression of nuclear deterrence.

No, it isn’t.

It is, however, the logical progression of the argument put forth by General Clark.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

At least he cannot hurt us in this crisis.

It's not like he hasn't tried...

 

[superchuck500]

No, it isn’t.

It is, however, the logical progression of the argument put forth by General Clark.

Ah, I understand now.

 

[insidejob]

Not all that surprising

Russia moves towards nationalising assets of firms that leave - ruling party

Russia's ruling party, United Russia, said on Wednesday that a government commission had approved the first step towards nationalising assets of foreign firms that leave the country in the wake of economic sanctions over Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

He's going to do the same thing to Russians who don't play along with him. He's been doing it the whole time he's been in power.

 

[MT15]

Speaking of parroting dangerous Russian propaganda, the right is now pushing this complete fallacy, and it includes Republican politicians who have to know better. It’s beyond irresponsible from them. It’s dangerous and anti-American from Tucker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/10/jennifer-griffin-sean-hannity-ukraine-bioweapons/

“A virulent claim is circulating in right-wing media and among some Republicans: The United States might be working on biolabs in Ukraine. This assertion, which echoes Russian propaganda and implies that the United States and Ukraine are collaborating on something nefarious and dangerous, has been sharply refuted by Biden officials and independent experts.

But now someone who works for Fox News has also challenged the claim: national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who ventured into Sean Hannity’s lion’s den and did so to his face.
Griffin’s exchange with Hannity is remarkable on its own. But it raises a question: While this might be expected from some in right-wing media, why are Republican lawmakers echoing it?”

 

[MT15]

Here’s a link about the subject that isn't paywalled, in case the WaPo article is. Republicans are acting like these labs were “just discovered” but R Senator Richard Lugar was working on them way back. And people in Congress and the press knew about it at the time. I cannot stand the way Fox and R Party regurgitate Russian propaganda. It makes me so angry.

Analysis: Russia and QAnon have the same false conspiracy theory about Ukraine | CNN Business

A new conspiracy theory has become popular among some of the online communities that formed around QAnon – one simultaneously being promoted by the Kremlin as a justification for its invasion of Ukraine. The false claim: the United States is developing bioweapons in Ukraine and Vladimir Putin...

www.cnn.com