Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[The Firestarter]

Seen as a step too far by a country already doing that exact same thing to their adversary. Does that seem rational to you? The point being that the reason behind escalation doesn't need to be rational, and is most likely to not be particularly rational, it just needs one side or the other to get scared and then things get out of control.

Let's say Russia invade Ukraine and it collapses quickly into insurgency warfare. The Baltic states and Poland panic and insist on a large NATO buildup in their countries in response to the chaos on their borders. Russia accidentally shoots down a passenger plane or military jet and suddenly the temperature is ratcheted up to boiling point. Putin is under pressure at home and can't be seen to lose face by accepting responsibility. The Biden administration is under pressure from the Republicans to respond to the loss of US lives. Suddenly otherwise small events start taking on huge lives of their own, and open warfare between Russia and NATO is perfectly likely.

We went through all this kind of crap before, and it almost ended us as a species. It's naive to assume that any kind of war like this couldn't escalate into something terrifying. National leaders at war are not rational actors.

Yeah it was seen as a step too far that surely even today you can appreciate why - it was a stone throw away from Miami. So there was not complete parity w.r.t the Jupiter deployment. Nobody, literally nobody in the US would have been OK with this.
Today's world is much different than 1963. Russia is in various trade agreements with the former "imperialistic west" which benefit its leader and his sycophants personally. Nobody on either side stands to gain anything from a global thermonuclear war. The only remote possibility I see for this in the future is if Putin in his old age is still somehow in control, totally loses the plot and decides to go out with a bang - and that is assuming nobody is there to prevent this.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Seen as a step too far by a country already doing that exact same thing to their adversary. Does that seem rational to you?

Yes…due to the Cold War era interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine it was entirely rational.

But even though I don’t agree with your reasoning, I agree with your overarching point. We are intently watching this, the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, etc. But for all we know, WWIII could erupt over some barely inhabited stretch of the Himalayas between India and China. Humans, smart as we may be, are really stupid.

 

[Kentonio]

Yeah it was seen as a step too far that surely even today you can appreciate why - it was a stone throw away from Miami. So there was not complete parity w.r.t the Jupiter deployment. Nobody, literally nobody in the US would have been OK with this.
Today's world is much different than 1963. Russia is in various trade agreements with the former "imperialistic west" which benefit its leader and his sycophants personally. Nobody on either side stands to gain anything from a global thermonuclear war. The only remote possibility I see for this in the future is if Putin in his old age is still somehow in control, totally loses the plot and decides to go out with a bang - and that is assuming nobody is there to prevent this.

Nobody had ever had anything to gain from global thermonuclear war. The real threat of it has always been of the nuclear nations basically stumbling into it, and as that's already almost happened several times it seems rather foolish to assume it couldn't happen again.

 

[The Firestarter]

Nobody had ever had anything to gain from global thermonuclear war. The real threat of it has always been of the nuclear nations basically stumbling into it, and as that's already almost happened several times it seems rather foolish to assume it couldn't happen again.

Of course you could happen again. But surely you can see how the world is different from 60 years ago?

 

[Kinsella]

This is a few years old and isn't specifically about the Russia & Ukraine issue, but it's a good listen -

 

[berbatrick]

Cuba was already aligned with the USSR and the US was humiliated in the bay of pigs fiasco. Although there were calls for attack on Cuba , that was obviously deemed already unrealistic given the Soviet backing. What really brought the world to the edge was the deployment of the missiles on us' doorstep. Yes its hypocritical as you note but that doesnt really matter in the discussion what caused the escalation. Also note that the US was already living in fear of a decapitating first strike given the proximity of DC to the ocean. This was seen as a step too far.

Not to the CIA, Pentagon, Fidel, or Khruschev, which is what motivated the latter two to install the missiles (to show that the Soviet backing against invasion was real and not just a gesture).

This was hardly a secret then and is declassified now (to whatever extent declassification is complete)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cuba-newly-released-documents-show/813376001/

 

[Foxbatt]

Yeah it was seen as a step too far that surely even today you can appreciate why - it was a stone throw away from Miami. So there was not complete parity w.r.t the Jupiter deployment. Nobody, literally nobody in the US would have been OK with this.
Today's world is much different than 1963. Russia is in various trade agreements with the former "imperialistic west" which benefit its leader and his sycophants personally. Nobody on either side stands to gain anything from a global thermonuclear war. The only remote possibility I see for this in the future is if Putin in his old age is still somehow in control, totally loses the plot and decides to go out with a bang - and that is assuming nobody is there to prevent this.

You push the Russians in a corner and then when they have no other options is when the fat hits the fire. I am surprised that the Europeans do not seem to understand that the Russians know a lot of their country is going to be wiped out. Just like in the 2nd world war and a lot more. The Europeans are the ones who will just as much devastated as the Russians. little UK will be off the face of the map.
Why do they keep on pushing Russians so much? I am sure they said they are willing to have agreements with a non NATO Ukraine and non positioning of nuclear weapons and the implementation of The Minsk Agreement. What we lack in the western world is Statesmen.

 

[The Firestarter]

Not to the CIA, Pentagon, Fidel, or Khruschev, which is what motivated the latter two to install the missiles (to show that the Soviet backing against invasion was real and not just a gesture).

This was hardly a secret then and is declassified now (to whatever extent declassification is complete)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cuba-newly-released-documents-show/813376001/

I know it's widely stated the reason why the missiles were installed was to defend against US invasion of Cuba . However that does not make sense, because they can be wiped out easily even using purely conventional ordnance - the US main land is too close and they can stage easily a surprise air raid. What Castro asked for I believe was a nuclear strike on US in case of invasion - not necessarily coming directly from Cuba. Which would make more sense as a response.
The real reason was a response for the Jupiter deployment and achievement of first strike capability. It was suggested to Kruschev by Bulgarian PM Todor Zhivkov while he was on vacation at the Black Sea Coast.
RE US plan of invasion - yeah they had their share of loonies at all levels. There was one looney who wanted to to preemptively nuke USSR and China, before they develop their own bombs. The fact that this invasion didn't happen for the entirety of the Cold War and after it, is indicative that it was ultimately deemed not worth it.

 

[Kentonio]

Of course you could happen again. But surely you can see how the world is different from 60 years ago?

The older I get the more I realize that not much changes when it comes to people. The same situations play out over and over again, and every time people think 'It couldn't happen to us'.

 

[The Firestarter]

The older I get the more I realize that not much changes when it comes to people. The same situations play out over and over again, and every time people think 'It couldn't happen to us'.

That is true, but people tend to view mutual assured destruction somewhat differently than other situations.

 

[Buster15]

I know it's widely stated the reason why the missiles were installed was to defend against US invasion of Cuba . However that does not make sense, because they can be wiped out easily even using purely conventional ordnance - the US main land is too close and they can stage easily a surprise air raid. What Castro asked for I believe was a nuclear strike on US in case of invasion - not necessarily coming directly from Cuba. Which would make more sense as a response.
The real reason was a response for the Jupiter deployment and achievement of first strike capability. It was suggested to Kruschev by Bulgarian PM Todor Zhivkov while he was on vacation at the Black Sea Coast.
RE US plan of invasion - yeah they had their share of loonies at all levels. There was one looney who wanted to to preemptively nuke USSR and China, before they develop their own bombs. The fact that this invasion didn't happen for the entirety of the Cold War and after it, is indicative that it was ultimately deemed not worth it.

My understanding of the history is that Castro and Cuba were not the prime movers.
Russia was extremely unhappy with the US when they deployed their missiles in Turkey.
Despite a number of requests from Russia, the US refused to withdraw these missiles. So Khrushchev needed some leverage and Castro was a willing ally.
Many people believe that it was the Naval blockade which pursuaded Khrushchev to withdraw.
But it was primarily because the US agreed to withdraw their missiles from Turkey. Kennedy was looking for anything to prevent nuclear escalation and Turkey was the thing.

 

[berbatrick]

I know it's widely stated the reason why the missiles were installed was to defend against US invasion of Cuba . However that does not make sense, because they can be wiped out easily even using purely conventional ordnance - the US main land is too close and they can stage easily a surprise air raid. What Castro asked for I believe was a nuclear strike on US in case of invasion - not necessarily coming directly from Cuba. Which would make more sense as a response.
The real reason was a response for the Jupiter deployment and achievement of first strike capability. It was suggested to Kruschev by Bulgarian PM Todor Zhivkov while he was on vacation at the Black Sea Coast.
RE US plan of invasion - yeah they had their share of loonies at all levels. There was one looney who wanted to to preemptively nuke USSR and China, before they develop their own bombs. The fact that this invasion didn't happen for the entirety of the Cold War and after it, is indicative that it was ultimately deemed not worth it.

The "loonies" in this instance were the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the head of the CIA, not Curtis LeMay as some lone wolf.
Literally the only thing between these people and their plans coming intro fruition was the president's signature. Every other step had been passed. The Bay Of Pigs was carried out with the assumption of a follow-up US military invasion which JFK didn't provide, while Northwood didn't take off because JFK didn't sign the papers. In fact, the reason the Bay of Pigs happened was because Eisenhower did give his signature to Mongoose, an actually-implemented campaign of terrorism, aerial bombings, and assassination, of which the invasion was to the the culmination. Again, this is declassified, we don't know what isn't. This is the bare minimum of what was planned and carried out.

About the "real reason" and 1st strike vs defence: the withdrawal for the missiles of course involved Turkey, but also talked about invading Cuba, specifically about US invasion and respect of sovereignty. It's in multiple public and private letters sent by Khrushchev to Kennedy as well.


Anyway, the overall point was about the "unrealistic" nature of a US invasion of Cuba because of Soviet backing.
Not just had invasion plans been drawn up and passed (and partly executed) at the highest levels before the crisis (when Soviet backing was uncertain, and when a template existed in the form of the destruction of Guatemala), the vast majority of the decision-makers excluding JFK favoured a full conventional and nuclear invasion during the crisis itself (when Soviet backing was obvious), and this feverish planning for direct invasion only lessened after the crisis (when Soviet backing was obvious and an agreement had been reached).

It was the farthest thing from unrealistic in anyone's minds before October 1962.

 

[Schmiznurf]

My wife honestly panics about this way too much. We live in Poland so she's panicked that Russia will invade Ukraine and then Poland. I've tried explaining that Poland is part of the EU and if Russia even steps foot near Poland they'll be facing the entire EU, but she won't listen to reason.

 

[The Firestarter]

The "loonies" in this instance were the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the head of the CIA, not Curtis LeMay as some lone wolf.
Literally the only thing between these people and their plans coming intro fruition was the president's signature. Every other step had been passed. The Bay Of Pigs was carried out with the assumption of a follow-up US military invasion which JFK didn't provide, while Northwood didn't take off because JFK didn't sign the papers. In fact, the reason the Bay of Pigs happened was because Eisenhower did give his signature to Mongoose, an actually-implemented campaign of terrorism, aerial bombings, and assassination, of which the invasion was to the the culmination. Again, this is declassified, we don't know what isn't. This is the bare minimum of what was planned and carried out.

About the "real reason" and 1st strike vs defence: the withdrawal for the missiles of course involved Turkey, but also talked about invading Cuba, specifically about US invasion and respect of sovereignty. It's in multiple public and private letters sent by Khrushchev to Kennedy as well.


Anyway, the overall point was about the "unrealistic" nature of a US invasion of Cuba because of Soviet backing.
Not just had invasion plans been drawn up and passed (and partly executed) at the highest levels before the crisis (when Soviet backing was uncertain, and when a template existed in the form of the destruction of Guatemala), the vast majority of the decision-makers excluding JFK favoured a full conventional and nuclear invasion during the crisis itself (when Soviet backing was obvious), and this feverish planning for direct invasion only lessened after the crisis (when Soviet backing was obvious and an agreement had been reached).

It was the farthest thing from unrealistic in anyone's minds before October 1962.

Fair enough, unrealistic was not the correct word. Btw, speaking of loonies:

It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, another false flag plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying: "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al. Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

 

[Dante]

This thread always frightens me when I see it updated on the homepage.

 

[Mihai]

Yeah it’s extremely unlikely that something like that would happen, considering large proportion of the general population do not know what or where Transnistria is and so it would be a bit odd to come to their aid when there are still ethnic Russian communities which could be attached in Ukraine. It would also mean starting a conflict with Moldova potentially so yeah I think the guy got his wires crossed somewhere.

There are around 1500 russian troops deployed in Transnistria.

 

[Mihai]

My wife honestly panics about this way too much. We live in Poland so she's panicked that Russia will invade Ukraine and then Poland. I've tried explaining that Poland is part of the EU and if Russia even steps foot near Poland they'll be facing the entire EU, but she won't listen to reason.

I am from Moldova and I am honestly bricking it at the moment.

 

[Sky1981]

For what it's worth I don't think a full scale invasion would materialized, far from it. Some posturing and back and forth lob of words perhaps, but the Russian aren't that dumb.

A war would benefit no one in the age of trade, I hope sane minds prevail.

 

[Paxi]

There are around 1500 russian troops deployed in Transnistria.

Hmm I didn’t know that. They’ve been sent there by Russian government and has Moldova allowed this? I thought Transnistria was pretty much cut off from the rest of Moldova with them having their own sort of government etc. watched a documentary a long time ago so my memory is hazy.,

 

[Kentonio]

You push the Russians in a corner and then when they have no other options is when the fat hits the fire. I am surprised that the Europeans do not seem to understand that the Russians know a lot of their country is going to be wiped out. Just like in the 2nd world war and a lot more. The Europeans are the ones who will just as much devastated as the Russians. little UK will be off the face of the map.
Why do they keep on pushing Russians so much? I am sure they said they are willing to have agreements with a non NATO Ukraine and non positioning of nuclear weapons and the implementation of The Minsk Agreement. What we lack in the western world is Statesmen.

Which only makes any sense at all if you believe that the west have a secret plan to eventually invade Russia, which is nonsense. As for Russia being some poor little angel that keeps getting 'pushed', maybe if they didn't keep invading their neighbours like Ukraine and Georgia, then their neighbours wouldn't be so keen to align themselves with what they see as much less threatening partners.

 

[Mihai]

Hmm I didn’t know that. They’ve been sent there by Russian government and has Moldova allowed this? I thought Transnistria was pretty much cut off from the rest of Moldova with them having their own sort of government etc. watched a documentary a long time ago so my memory is hazy.,

Well, historically speaking, russian military presence dates back to the 50' when the 14th soviet army was deployed in the region. It was officially dissolved after the Transnistria war in 1992, but they kept military troops because they had (and still have) ammunition depots in the region. This has been an ongoing issue for the Moldavian government. If i remember correctly, in 2016 Russia agreed to remove the troops but never did it as they had to transit Ukraine.

On 13th January, Russian defence ministry confirmed military drills in Transnistria, which led Ukrainian and Moldavian governments to believe they can stage a provocation to start a full invasion in Ukraine.

They have their own government, they kept all major soviet administrative systems and it's like going back in time. The population in the region is about half a million and the vast majority have Moldova citizenship. As they are not recognized internationally, they have to rely on Moldova (and to a lesser extent Ukraine, Russia and Romania) for any activity outside the region. For example, the football club Sheriff plays in Moldova football division and represents it in Europe.

 

[Simbo]

I hate that I often end up playing devil's advocate in those threads about Russian politics but your post simplifies what happened to a classic external conflict which it really isn't. Just like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea and all of those proxy wars of the Cold War there are internal conflicts that precede a foreign invasion. And this is an internal Ukrainian conflict first (the country had been very much divided in half after Maidan (2004) by a cultural, linguistic and ethnic border with Western Ukraine gravitating towards European Union & Eastern Ukraine gravitating towards Russia and post-Soviet block*). It's not a coincidence that all the hell had broke loose after Yanukovich (who had got his presidency in 2010), got more or less kicked out of the office which the Eastern Ukraine considered as an attack on their interests that, they felt, were underrepresented in this new forming Ukraine.

* Yanukovich, a guy from Donetsk, won the original vote (likely not without falsifications), Yushchenko (very much pro-Western candidate) won the revote 52% to 44% and it kinda resembled the great American divide of the Trump era.

Now, Putin had obviously used this situation to his advantage and sent Russian troops there in support (which he quite ridiculously keeps denying with a disgusting smirk on his face), but the battle for Donetsk airport wasn't a battle between the invading Russian forces and the defending Ukrainian ones. It was mostly militia from both the unrecognised Donetsk' People's Republic & Lugansk' People's Republic with the notable support from Russian military (not as much in terms of people, although there were obviously "decommissioned" Russian military fighting there, as in terms of weapons, tanks, rockets etc.). And Donetsk' airport was destroyed by an artillery and airforce strikers by both pro-Russian & Ukrainian sides, it wasn't pretty.

TL/DR: as with pretty much any conflict, the real picture isn't as black & white even though Putin's (I don't want to say Russia's) actions were probably the decisive factor behind the militarisation of this conflict.

Many/most countries have political divides that can be split by geography, not many go to war over it... Were the people of Donetsk/Luganks really so disgruntled that it was time to resort to armed conflict? Seems to me like it was all Russia/Putin's doing to manipulate that outcome. It may be mostly fought by locals on the ground but the DPR are just cheap mercenaries to Putin.

He must have known history would repeat isself when re-installing Yanukovich.

 

[Paxi]

Well, historically speaking, russian military presence dates back to the 50' when the 14th soviet army was deployed in the region. It was officially dissolved after the Transnistria war in 1992, but they kept military troops because they had (and still have) ammunition depots in the region. This has been an ongoing issue for the Moldavian government. If i remember correctly, in 2016 Russia agreed to remove the troops but never did it as they had to transit Ukraine.

On 13th January, Russian defence ministry confirmed military drills in Transnistria, which led Ukrainian and Moldavian governments to believe they can stage a provocation to start a full invasion in Ukraine.

They have their own government, they kept all major soviet administrative systems and it's like going back in time. The population in the region is about half a million and the vast majority have Moldova citizenship. As they are not recognized internationally, they have to rely on Moldova (and to a lesser extent Ukraine, Russia and Romania) for any activity outside the region. For example, the football club Sheriff plays in Moldova football division and represents it in Europe.

Ah, okay, thanks for that mate.

 

[Sir Matt]

I guess this isn't surprising given the thorn they are in Putin's side because his security apparatus is so incompetent, particularly surrounding Navalny. It's also somewhat ominous given how effective they are at piercing the veil of Russian disinformation right before a potential invasion.

 

[Foxbatt]

Which only makes any sense at all if you believe that the west have a secret plan to eventually invade Russia, which is nonsense. As for Russia being some poor little angel that keeps getting 'pushed', maybe if they didn't keep invading their neighbours like Ukraine and Georgia, then their neighbours wouldn't be so keen to align themselves with what they see as much less threatening partners.

Of course they have a plan and it's why they rejected when Russia offered to join the NATO. The whole purpose of NATO is to keep Russia down.
But there is a big difference between the Russians and the soviets. Most of the Soviet leaders were not Russian.

 

[Kentonio]

Of course they have a plan and it's why they rejected when Russia offered to join the NATO. The whole purpose of NATO is to keep Russia down.
But there is a big difference between the Russians and the soviets. Most of the Soviet leaders were not Russian.

Ah yes..

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

 

[nickm]

Of course they have a plan and it's why they rejected when Russia offered to join the NATO. The whole purpose of NATO is to keep Russia down.

Whatever. I can think of good reasons why NATO might distrust having a dictatorship in its alliance of democracies.

Russia's multiple recent aggressions are well documented, including the murder of a UK citizen by blundering Russian agents. Let's hope NATO continues to defend us from this kind of regime.

What is going to happen as a result of Putin's boneheaded actions, is a stronger and more unified NATO at the exact time it was looking weaker and shakier than at any point in its history. It's going to get bigger and it's going to re-arm. If Russia wants an arms race with an entity that is 30x its economic size, then bring it on. It'll end the way the last arms race did.

 

[The Firestarter]

I guess this isn't surprising given the thorn they are in Putin's side because his security apparatus is so incompetent, particularly surrounding Navalny. It's also somewhat ominous given how effective they are at piercing the veil of Russian disinformation right before a potential invasion.

What's interesting here is that the Belarussian minister doesn't have to announce any troop movement, and these trains don't have to move in broad daylight either. It might be yet another instance of the information warfare Putin is successfully conducting.

 

[dinostar77]

I reckon they have staged this really well. Gas prices are at all all time high. Nord Stream 2 is waiting to go, but cant because of regulators. If Russia invade Ukraine all they have to say to EU is, "well chaps, we wont turn on nord stream 2 after all, unless you turn a blind eye to whats happening in ukraine". Do that and gas prices will come down as we will cooperate with regulators and nord stream 2 can be turned on.

 

[nickm]

I reckon they have staged this really well. Gas prices are at all all time high. Nord Stream 2 is waiting to go, but cant because of regulators. If Russia invade Ukraine all they have to say to EU is, "well chaps, we wont turn on nord stream 2 after all, unless you turn a blind eye to whats happening in ukraine". Do that and gas prices will come down as we will cooperate with regulators and nord stream 2 can be turned on.

Maybe. It's interesting to see the changing sentiment in Germany around this.

 

[Rajma]

Of course they have a plan and it's why they rejected when Russia offered to join the NATO. The whole purpose of NATO is to keep Russia down.
But there is a big difference between the Russians and the soviets. Most of the Soviet leaders were not Russian.

Who’s this russian bot and what are you doing on the caf?

 

[dinostar77]

Maybe. It's interesting to see the changing sentiment in Germany around this.

Good link thanks

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Putin's marched his men to the top of the hill, rattled his sabre, and as far as I can see he has achieved nothing. He laid out his demands, he was told to they were unreasonable and wouldn't be accepted. So what does he do now? March his men back down the hill and look foolish or gamble on a invasion which could easily turn into a bear trap.

The only person backing Russia into a corner is Putin.

 

[harms]

Many/most countries have political divides that can be split by geography, not many go to war over it... Were the people of Donetsk/Luganks really so disgruntled that it was time to resort to armed conflict? Seems to me like it was all Russia/Putin's doing to manipulate that outcome. It may be mostly fought by locals on the ground but the DPR are just cheap mercenaries to Putin.

He must have known history would repeat isself when re-installing Yanukovich.

Yeah, don't underestimate post-Maidan tensions in Ukraine. It's impossible to imagine a scenario where Putin didn't play a part in this to evaluate whenever an armed conflict would've happened without him or not — Russia & Putin have been a huge influence in the region since... well, the very beginning of this post-Soviet state of affairs, so even without Russian military & weapons they still played a huge part in how everything ended up.

 

[nimic]

But there is a big difference between the Russians and the soviets. Most of the Soviet leaders were not Russian.

I don't believe that's accurate.

There's certainly a big difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, but Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union.

 

[The Firestarter]

I don't believe that's accurate.

Its not. Stalin and Brezhnev are the ones born outside of Russia (that I am aware of).

 

[Sir Matt]

I reckon they have staged this really well. Gas prices are at all all time high. Nord Stream 2 is waiting to go, but cant because of regulators. If Russia invade Ukraine all they have to say to EU is, "well chaps, we wont turn on nord stream 2 after all, unless you turn a blind eye to whats happening in ukraine". Do that and gas prices will come down as we will cooperate with regulators and nord stream 2 can be turned on.

If Russia cuts off gas to Europe or increases prices sufficiently, it's a major incentive for Europe to find alternative sources of energy. Oil and gas revenue makes up something like 40% of the Russian government's revenues, 60% of its exports, and 20% of its GDP. Losing its primary export market would crater the Russian economy.

Also, if Russia can't turn on Nord Stream 2, it still has to send gas through Ukraine with accompanying costs to get it to Europe.

 

[Simbo]

I don't believe that's accurate.

There's certainly a big difference between Russia and the Soviet Union, but Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union.

Its also literally still run by the most indoctrinated of Soviets, those that fought the cold war and of all the the things that changed when the Soviet Union fell, apart from a name change, the KGB was relatively untouched.

 

[Raoul]

This is a few years old and isn't specifically about the Russia & Ukraine issue, but it's a good listen -

A predictably terrible argument made by the lesser Hitchens brother.

 

[neverdie]

Potential NATO invasion of Russia would not be incorrect either. Poor one-sided reporting from Western outlets.

NATO has expanded to circumscribe Russia and Russia is weary of it. Nothing else to it. Russia won't invade the Ukraine.