Sure, nothing to do with Russia surrounding Ukraine with 100,000+ soldiers, tanks, artillery and the rest of it..
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sure, nothing to do with Russia surrounding Ukraine with 100,000+ soldiers, tanks, artillery and the rest of it..
Yes, and one they see themselves as not losing from. Europe should let American hegemony die. The telling sign for me was the presupposition that America ought to be able to decide German national economic policy. The news ran headlines, "Biden says Nordstream will not happen". This is a line that runs from Russia into Germany some three thousand miles away from the United States. What makes Americans think they have the right to decide that? It's absolute hubris and irrespective of whether you view Russia as a devil or an angel, America must be viewed as an illegitimate assertion of force. Time for that to die insofar as it shapes European action and reaction to European interests.
Indeed, never mind the guy who is actually threatening to invade Ukraine with over 100k troops.
At the risk of keeping some awake. 
At the risk of keeping some awake.
Why does this matter more when Soviets and Russians have been flying Tu-95s near airspaces for decades?
Because something not as common is more remarkable? Russians(Navy and Air Force) acting like jackasses is a pretty normal.
Edit: I should mention that there is an international exercise on the eastern side of the Meditarrenean sea with France, Greece, the US and other NATO countries. So it's not as if there isn't a potential context to it but the timing is amusing.
Meh, I have seen stories of B-2s flying near North Korean airspace and B-52s flying into China's ADIZ as a reminder of the support for Taiwan before.
They didn’t estimate them as smaller though. Troop movements are easy to monitor. They will have all used the same data and had the same briefs. Nowhere in the article does it say they estimated them as smaller.
Their positions are exactly the same. They are simply using a slightly different tone diplomatically.
In military terms: Russia have been telegraphing their troop movements very publicly (again). This has many effects. Ramping up diplomatic pressure, encouraging complacency through crying wolf etc. But the briefs for the military intelligence people are far more simple. They compile the evidence and send it to the politicians. The evidence is clear and I believe I've presented enough here. As I said, Russia is being very open about all this whereas it could be more covert. This by the way would be a good way to frame your argument that they never intended to invade. (Surprise is everything, why ruin the surprise if it's counter to your goals)
These are the things I'd personally be looking out for if I was an analyst:
- Where the troops have come from
- Number of BTG's within fast rail distance
- Rail availability
- Unmanned heavy equipment (Tanks etc)
- Spetsnaz locations
- Presence on their eastern front
- Equipment for field hospitals (structures, blood, machines etc)
- Field hospitals, especially fully manned field hospitals
- Air power moved into place
- Amphib forces in Crimea
- Special unit deployments. Radiation, MP's, etc
- Missile deployments
- Reserve call ups
Not all have these boxes are ticked, but most of the ones that would take a lot of time are.
Now none of this tells us Putins motives, if they are going to invade, or when. It's for the politicians and generals to decide what to do with the evidence and draw their own conclusions. But make no mistake, in military terms the situation is very different to April. If you as a politician or general choose to interpret that as 'russia will invade' or 'russia won't invade' that's up to you.
My personal opinion is we'll see a limited excursion from the East, and perhaps a play for Kiev from the north though that's more unlikely. We'll see a sea blockade. But that's an opinion. If Biden and Blinken feel otherwise, I'm sure they are advised by much smart people than I am. Similarly Macron. (I'm excluding Boris and Truss here as those clowns probably don't even read analyst reports.)
All the military infrastructure is probably in place for an invasion. The problem for me is that a lot of people don't understand the mentality or the way their opponents think.
Have the same intelligence and come with a different conclusion.
Look at the Battle of Midway. Rochefort and Layton were convinced it was Midway. Washington was convinced it was the West Coast. They both had the same raw intelligence. Luckily both Layton and Rochefort studied Japanese and lived in Japan and understood the Japanese. George Kennan understood The Russians.
Unfortunately we don't seem to have people like that anymore.
Wow, that’s huge. Who knows what happens in his head but this may be the thing that will allow Putin not only to save face but to reasonably feel that he had won that … whatever you want to call it.
I also wonder how the Ukrainians will react in the next elections if this indeed occurs.
Zelensky isn’t winning the next ones anyway. But yeah, it’s an interesting question.
I don't think anybody understands how Putin thinks to be honest. I certainly don't know what he'll do.
....Maybe. It would require him to admit he was going to start a war without the commitment. It would also show how willing Ukraine are to bend over to pressure. (And that a quick strike on donbas/kiev might make the whole pack of cards fall. Who knows as you say.
Badly. Also makes you wonder how Putin reacts if the next government apply to NATO again. Zelensky can't speak for the future.
He certainly doesn’t need to admit anything. The official line is that 1. Russia is not invading, it’s Western propaganda, we simply do military exercises on the border 2. Russia pushes for a diplomatic solution that would stop Ukraine from joining NATO — independently from the first point. So if the second part would be achieved, he can simply call it the win for Russian diplomacy.
And a validation for his old school bullying strategy.
I would guess that the commitment would have to be done in a form that wouldn’t be easy to change… although I have no idea if there even is such a form.
Goes without saying, yes.
I mean, yes and no. You don't need a diplomatic solution to Western propoganda and military exercises, because there's nothing to solve! It's not like his moves are subtle anyway though,. so I guess its an irrelevant point.
Can totally see him saying it: *smirks* Our military so strong , they surrender without a shot *shit eating grin*
No, a diplomatic solution is not focused on Western propaganda but on a continuing expansion of NATO (that promised* Russia not to expand on the East) — a threat that has been discussed by him & his goons for years of not for decades now. Our military exercises are almost non-existent in the Russian media — only appearing in pieces that expose Western media hypocrisy. In terms of his line of propaganda it all fits seamlessly, really — although you can’t really question it (it falls apart under even a mild scrutiny).
* long story short, it didn’t — he’s referring to a statement made regarding the Unification of Germany that was also changed in a few days by the NATO higher ups.
That would be a major breakthrough and great news.
Well if your objective is national security and your chosen method is going to end up with an immediate invasion then it's not exactly the wisest action.
I can't imagine that Ukraine will take this position unless they get some way to save face though. Tough for any politician to make the correct call here.
It's shitty news. It means Russia has re-established its sphere of influence and can now control it's neighbours foreign policies.
Isn't that essentially what Russia wanted anyhow?
So Russia win no matter what, and the posturing was all worth it!
So Russia win no matter what, and the posturing was all worth it!
Whilst some of you will be gutted if there's no war it's clearly not shitty news. Would you prefer a long bloody war where Russia eventually retreats?
It wouldn't impede any future ambitions in reality as they weren't close to joining NATO anyway. The Ukrainian people can vote in the direction they wish to take.
Here and now de-escalation is the right move. The alliance they wish to join have barely come to their aid so they've no choice.
Ukraine joining NATO isn't viable anyway. And believing that there will be no Russian influence in the Donbas with its some 30-40% Russian population isn't viable either. Surely a political solution is preferable.
Russia pulling the strings
and NATO , the UK, USA will all be too chicken to do a dam thing.
Russia thinking what a bunch of wet blankets, and China thinking what a weak weak world the western world is.
It’s not a case of they are only flexing their, muscles just ignore them, they’ve literally galvanised a combat ready force of 100,000+ troops with heaving equipment on the border of UKR bullying them into not making their own decisions and doing what Russia wants them too do……all NATO, UK and US have done is jabber away with a load of jibberish, no action at all because we are nothing more than scared absolutely senseless of Russia
action doesn’t mean war, but don’t just stand by and do quite literally nothing.
and NATO , the UK, USA will all be too chicken to do a dam thing.
Russia thinking what a bunch of wet blankets, and China thinking what a weak weak world the western world is.
It’s not a case of they are only flexing their, muscles just ignore them, they’ve literally galvanised a combat ready force of 100,000+ troops with heaving equipment on the border of UKR bullying them into not making their own decisions and doing what Russia wants them too do……all NATO, UK and US have done is jabber away with a load of jibberish, no action at all because we are nothing more than scared absolutely senseless of Russia
action doesn’t mean war, but don’t just stand by and do quite literally nothing.
There’s no good way out of this situation to be fair, so I’ll take the one that doesn’t lead to an actual war. Ideally you’d have Putin back off on his own but I don’t believe that it’s a realistic option at this point.
West have been pathetic in this, especially, ze Germans. I get the not wanting to get involved directly part but why not simply say we’ll supply Ukraine with unlimited high-end weaponry if Russia decides to invade further by giving it every chance to defend itself? It would have been enough for Putin to back-off. He only understands one language as any bully.
I think it would have happened regardless of them saying it. The US/UK that is. The less said about the EU countries the better.
So what does it mean?
As in, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Thankfully, Germany doesn't follow NRA slogans as foreign policy in this case, as much as our thriving weapons manufacturing industry would like it too.
* when the bad guy is selling you gas
And the good guys are Nazi-revering nationalist militia. It's just an all-round fantastic situation.
Sorry misquote. I do think some foreign policy hawks see this as a way to topple Putin though.
They haven’t though. Manpads aren’t proper equipment. Turkey and Norway are the only ones that have.
What the US seem to be doing is equipping them for small scale attritional asymmetric warfare against an occupying force, in a situation where they know Putin can only lose. It’s like they want a low intensity conflict to burn but don’t want to give them anything that may escalate (like the ability to blow up a ship or bomb a Russian train)
The U.K. have delayed sending anti ship missiles, the US have probably embargoed israeli drones. They are providing no modern jets, ASW, subs, or SAMs. If they were allowed Israeli or US drones, they could literally destroy every supply line. If they were allowed ASW or given subs they could severely disrupt the navy. If they were given SAMs they could down jets.
….and of course the US love to do this shit.
Why do some people think that Putin is going to let Russia be defeated in a conventional war? What is the point of nuclear weapons if you don't use it?
Sure Russia will be devastated but so would most of Europe including the destruction of UK and a lot of USA.
It would be the same for USA too. They won't let them be defeated in a conventional war.
Sure Russia will be devastated but so would most of Europe including the destruction of UK and a lot of USA.
It would be the same for USA too. They won't let them be defeated in a conventional war.
Because Putin isn’t a nihilistic megalomaniac with impaired mental capacity?