Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

2cents said:
So pretty much another Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transnistria situation?

Pretty much guarantees hostile relations with Kiev for the foreseeable (although perhaps that would be the case anyway given Crimea), so all in all would amount to a net loss for Moscow since 2014.
Click to expand...

These regions have very large natural gas reserves, so there could be something in that.

It could also of course be the pretext for further escalation. Ukraine/DPR etc have been lobbing shells at each other on a daily basis, under cease fire agreement or not. Once Donesk 'officially' comes under Russian protection any received fire could be used as justification for war. Might also explain why ukraine forces were reportedly ordered not to return fire under any circumstances a few days ago.
 
Raoul said:
Ahh ok, gotcha.
Click to expand...

And to be clear, it seems factual that Russia are increasing their presence on the western borders(not just Ukraine) and seas but that's again not new and it's also seemingly permanent. Since there isn't as much reports when things are not as busy it's difficult to have a clear figure but apparently since 2016 Russia has consistently maintained between 70k-100k at the borders with figures swelling when they have field exercises.
 
Simbo said:
It could also of course be the pretext for further escalation. Ukraine/DPR etc have been lobbing shells at each other on a daily basis, under cease fire agreement or not. Once Donesk 'officially' comes under Russian protection any received fire could be used as justification for war. Might also explain why ukraine forces were reportedly ordered not to return fire under any circumstances a few days ago.
Click to expand...

I don't think it could be used as a legitimate pretext for a full on invasion given that they have been sporadically shooting at one another for the better part of 8 years now between Donbas and the Ukrainian side. If Putin thinks he can manufacture a "provocation" out of this, then he's clearly running out of ideas.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it could be used as a legitimate pretext for a full on invasion given that they have been sporadically shooting at one another for the better part of 8 years now between Donbas and the Ukrainian side. If Putin thinks he can manufacture a "provocation" out of this, then he's clearly running out of ideas.
Click to expand...

How do you see him manage that situation? Put the army between them?
 
No one can seriously believe Putin was scared off by all the tough talk. NATO basically gave him the green light to attack in running away and resorting to just sanctions.

The above post is correct that all Russia has in the new world is military intimidation and that's what they've done. It doesn't have the capability the US has to economically 'persuade' nations into it's preferred course of action.

We'll probably never know the backroom deals made, any public statements are agenda driven by default. My guess is the US called the bluff and escalated tensions purposely, they win whether Ukraine is invaded or not.
 


Just off topic slightly, say their get their independence - what will happen to Shakhtar? Which league will they play in, and how do they go forward considering, one would assume most, if not all of their fans are pro-Russian?
 
Raoul said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
Click to expand...

If Russia recognize Donbas as a republic then I would assume that it creates a potential military conflict between the new republic and Ukraine. How do you see Russia manage this situation without a war?

PS: Thinking about it, maybe that's why Russia increased its presence over the years, in order to dissuade a violent response from Ukraine?
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it could be used as a legitimate pretext for a full on invasion given that they have been sporadically shooting at one another for the better part of 8 years now between Donbas and the Ukrainian side. If Putin thinks he can manufacture a "provocation" out of this, then he's clearly running out of ideas.
Click to expand...

I know it sounds crazy to us, but he is still a bureaucrat and this would give him a 'legitimate' narrative to ram down the throats of the Russian people, that they are defending the lives and freedoms of people in the sovereign states of Donesk and Luhansk... Ye its hard not to laugh while typing that but still.
 
JPRouve said:
But that's not new, I could understand your point if it was a new, development, I could understand it if they weren't supposed to be in Belarus for a while or in the Black Sea. But it's not the case.

People keep dodging the question, Russia could invade Ukraine, they have been in that position for a while, they have been moving BTGs around the border for years. My question is the following, it's a fact that Russia are maintaining pressure at the border, it's a fact that they have put themselves in a position to invade several of their neighbours at various points in time and it's pretty clear that trolling is part of the way they decided to operate, they do it even far from Russia but what make people believe that it's different to what Russia have done for a while?

I'm not telling you what Russia are going to do or not in the future but asking you why you think this is one is different. Give me a clear detailed answer, no one has done that.

PS: Even the field hospitals aren't a new thing despite what some papers claimed a few days ago.
Click to expand...

Were Macron, Merkel and Johnson visiting Russia last April and if not, why have they suddenly decided to do so if the situation is the same?

Similarly, were Germany, Italy and Belgium asking their citizens to leave Ukraine last April and if not, again what's changed in their perspective?

I agree with you there are some weirdos obsessed with beating the war drum, some who have a comic book like slant of NATO good, Russia bad.

But it seems strange to me to suggest that there is no difference at all compared to last April.
 
JPRouve said:
If Russia recognize Donbas as a republic then I would assume that it creates a potential military conflict between the new republic and Ukraine. How do you see Russia manage this situation without a war?

PS: Thinking about it, maybe that's why Russia increased its presence over the years, in order to dissuade a violent response from Ukraine?
Click to expand...

If Putin were to attempt to make Donbas a part of Russia or an "independent republic", then it would be perceived as evidence that negotiating with him is pointless since it would be in complete violation of the Minsk Agreement which he signed just few years ago, and would be the latest in a list of previous agreements he has ignored beginning from the 1994 Budapest Agreement to the present. It would be a confirmation that other nations need not negotiate with Russia because Putin has no intention of honoring any agreements if they don't suit his hunger to conquer new territory.
 
Paxi said:
Just off topic slightly, say their get their independence - what will happen to Shakhtar? Which league will they play in, and how do they go forward considering, one would assume most, if not all of their fans are pro-Russian?
Click to expand...

Need to be careful with the idea that 'pro-Russian' equals 'happy to have their country invaded by Russia'. The two are not necessarily the same thing. There were plenty of Ukrainians who considered themselves pro-Russian in that region who were displaced by the war and now hate Russia with a passion.
 
africanspur said:
Were Macron, Merkel and Johnson visiting Russia last April and if not, why have they suddenly decided to do so if the situation is the same?

Similarly, were Germany, Italy and Belgium asking their citizens to leave Ukraine last April and if not, again what's changed in their perspective?

I agree with you there are some weirdos obsessed with beating the war drum, some who have a comic book like slant of NATO good, Russia bad.

But it seems strange to me to suggest that there is no difference at all compared to last April.
Click to expand...

I don't know why Macron didn't visit then and did now but in April Macron, Merkel, Zelenskyi and Putin had a visio conference on that topic when Zelenskyi came to Paris due to Russia's movements at the border. And if I'm not mistaken the new advices for travelers are based on NATO's new advices, my guess would be that NATO followed the US new perspective which is the heart of the question what made the US change their perspective, they are the ones who made the claims.
 
Kentonio said:
Need to be careful with the idea that 'pro-Russian' equals 'happy to have their country invaded by Russia'. The two are not necessarily the same thing. There were plenty of Ukrainians who considered themselves pro-Russian in that region who were displaced by the war and now hate Russia with a passion.
Click to expand...

There's also a lot of pro-Russian nostalgia in southern Ukraine, including streets in places like Kherson and Nikolaev that are still named after snipers who assassinated occupying German soldiers during WW2, as well as plenty of residual statues of Lenin and other Soviet figures. The key difference being that most are well aware of their former Russian heritages, but have little interest in being part of an authoritarian dictatorship in the present. Crimea is obviously different, as a majority there do identify as Russian and considered Crimea to be Russian land, even when it was still run by Ukraine.
 
Simbo said:
So this 'de-escalation' seems to be planned to co-incide with Russia reconognising Donesk/Luhansk as independant states.

Expect them to follow that up with moving in peacekeeping forces to guarantee that independence.

Click to expand...

That's kind of big...
 
I really need to get some work done but there's too much going on now dammit.

 
JPRouve said:
I don't know why Macron didn't visit then and did now but in April Macron, Merkel, Zelenskyi and Putin had a visio conference on that topic when Zelenskyi came to Paris due to Russia's movements at the border. And if I'm not mistaken the new advices for travelers are based on NATO's new advices, my guess would be that NATO followed the US new perspective which is the heart of the question what made the US change their perspective, they are the ones who made the claims.
Click to expand...

A video call is rather different don't you think from a visit from the head of Europe's 3 biggest economies within a very short period of time?

And NATO countries haven't followed the US perspective because, as far as I'm aware, not all of the NATO countries ( or even most) have asked their citizens to leave the country.
 
africanspur said:
A video call is rather different don't you think from a visit from the head of Europe's 3 biggest economies within a very short period of time?

And NATO countries haven't followed the US perspective because, as far as I'm aware, not all of the NATO countries ( or even most) have asked their citizens to leave the country.
Click to expand...

France didn't ask anyone to leave the country as far as I know. They told people to be vigilant three weeks ago but that's it.
 
Putin is currently doing a live press conference.

Even he can't explain how Maguire is still captain.
 
JPRouve said:
No, I'm asking questions. Not trusting Putin doesn't mean that I will trust the other side, I trust neither of them and question both.
Click to expand...

If you are asking what is the difference between a huge military exercise to prove battle readiness and capability to invade Ukraine and a mobilization of forces to actually invade then that is a tough question.

You could argue a military exercise doesn't have to take part on the actual border.
They don't often come with a list of demands.
You don't usually write a dodgy history article denying the right to independence of the country you are exercising right next to.

Until they cross the border and start shooting you can always pretend everything is OK and all the people who are worried are just war mongers or scaredy cats.

If the invasion doesn't take place then we will never know if Putin was serious or just testing NATO/EU and Zelensky.
 
JPRouve said:
France didn't ask anyone to leave the country as far as I know. They told people to be vigilant three weeks ago but that's it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point though? Germany and Italy for instance have asked but France have not. It clearly is not a generic NATO position based on just following the USA.

In April last year, nobody was asking citizens to leave.
 
africanspur said:
That's exactly my point though? Germany and Italy for instance have asked but France have not. It clearly is not a generic NATO position based on just following the USA.

In April last year, nobody was asking citizens to leave.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was generic, I gave you a suggestion for these decisions. NATO made a suggestion and some countries followed it while others didn't.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
In the fact that he clearly has some kind of mental problems associated with his advanced age. I don't think he'll physically be capable of campaigning. He looks worse every time he gives an interview.
Click to expand...

If it was a 'fact' then you'd be able to say with certainty what those mental problems are wouldn't you?
 
0161_UNITED said:
Nobody wants to see that, because places like Washington DC, Hereford, London, Baltimore, Seattle, would be probably be wiped out too. But I'd guarantee it. We'd hit them harder, faster, and more efficiently than anyone could imagine.
Click to expand...

This is why people hate Americans.
 
matherto said:
If it was a 'fact' then you'd be able to say with certainty what those mental problems are wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Dementia. Or are you pretending he is in full control of his mental faculties and has not declined in the past eight to ten years?

For reference: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son. These things are never revealed during the Presidential term even though everyone knows it (and Biden is 80 which is a year older than Regan after Reagan had finished his entire term).
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...

The EU, US, and Canada have agreed packages to extend Ukraine credit. They do their best to destroy the Ukranian economy by shorting it through rumours of war and then prop them up again for another round all the while Ukraine has been urging them to tone the rhetoric down.
 
Putin is smart. A dick, yes, but smart. There is no way in hell that he invades Ukraine. There is really nothing to gain. So, this whole fiasco was interesting while it lasted, but now it's getting a bit tedious.
 
VorZakone said:
So are they still exercising then? :nervous:
Click to expand...

Hope so, don't want them to move onto the real deal :nervous:

They really seem to be embracing their role of some sort of action on the 16th however... Fake de-escalation statements this morning, staged 'terrorist attack' in Luhansk and now there's an ongoing cyberattack against government websites and two state own bank with ATMs and card payment facilities out of action.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Dementia. Or are you pretending he is in full control of his mental faculties and has not declined in the past eight to ten years?

For reference: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son. These things are never revealed during the Presidential term even though everyone knows it (and Biden is 80 which is a year older than Regan after Reagan had finished his entire term).
Click to expand...

You said it was fact.

Nowhere, anywhere has it been diagnosed. In secret perhaps you're right, but it's not out there so speculation gets us nothing.

As such, it's your opinion.

I agree he's a bumbling (and getting worse) old man, but don't paint opinions as fact when you've no clue about.

I'm aware that lots of the Trump-hating world did the same to him (myself included) and so it looks like I'm defending Biden, who I can't really tolerate either, but I realised the error of my ways with Trump too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.