Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Sky1981 said:
I'm not saying power outage isnt a valid war strategy

Just that the notion that putin is blacking out the whole Ukraine to mask his first strike is unreasonable. The sort of what if being peddled on reddit.

They'd be at war long before that happens
Click to expand...

Ah ok, yeah. I certainly don't think he'd do it to mask the 1st strike, as you say it would be obvious anyway. I'd more expect it to be done to attempt to interfere/disrupt the response coming back from Ukraine.

The work cynical part of my brain wonders if the recent cyber-attacks are precursors to wider attacks that would occur at the outbreak of any actual war. It wouldn't be the 1st time a group carries out weaker, obvious attacks with the aim of seeing how the adversary will respond so that next time they can take that into account. In defending against an attack you show some of your cards, DDOS for example... Do you attempt to increase capacity to ride out the DDOS, do you take the service offline until it ends, do you attempt to use a different provider etc.
 
Sky1981 said:
And cyber army are real. I'm sure most nations has their own cyber squad for security measures. I just dont think they're state funded to hack for monetary profits. Well... perhapa North Korea does.
Click to expand...

North Korea does for profit, yeah. In most Western countries hackers are employed by government agencies. Russia does have that, but it also seems to have adopted a model of using organised crime hacking groups as a proxy. The Russian state does not want the money, it is essentially saying to these groups please hack targets of interest to us and in return, we will not come after any money you as a group make in the process or after you personally for any crimes committed in the process. Russia will obviously completely deny this and say that these groups act independently and they're trying their best to go after them etc.

Carolina Red said:
Well that would be better than glowing like last time, I guess.
Click to expand...

Ahaha, yeah, you'd like to think if they want to actually control the territory they'd do it in a fashion that didn't result in a meltdown...
 
harms said:
No one doubts that his initial plan was to bully the West to submission without having to play his hand. It’s not the question — it’s wherever he’s willing to go all in with his bluff being called out. And no one knows that still.
Click to expand...

Not really updated on Russian domestic politics, but if hes willing to go that far he must be getting really fecking desperate, or hes simply gone mental
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
This sounds about right. I think some people really overestimate the effect of "Russian bots." First, they aren't actually "bots" as you mention and troll farms are all over the place. In 2016, the Trump campaign's disinformation efforts completely dwarfed any foreign influence on Facebook ads and there was that recent article (which I can't find at the moment) where someone (an American) that worked for a right-wing misinformation company confessed to how he would set up hundreds of websites for misinformation. We've all seen plenty of evidence of how right-wing movements radicalized people in the last few years quite effectively on their own (sadly) without the need for any outside influence.

I think it's fairly simple because tons of research has existed for years that went facts contradict someone's belief system, they will quickly discard the facts rather than reform their belief system.
Click to expand...

You don’t think all think right-wing movements are influenced/supported/funded/created by Russia?

Breitbart, infowars, Cambridge analytica, Parler, everything the Mercer’s fund. They all have links to Russia. Everything NewsCorp owns all sing the Russian party line. All the main far-right politicians in Europe seem to be compromised, even Farage was spewing Putins words on GBN couple days ago.

Then there’s wikileaks and the NRA also appears to have been taken over by Russian money. I could go on.
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then I think we're kind of going round in circles here.

Your initial question was why are people thinking this is any different to April of last year, when Russia had already massed troops by the Ukraine border.

I don't know if Putin ever intended to/ ever will invade. And as I said, I certainly don't share the lust for making a point that some on here appear to (I'm sure without any personal risk to most of them of course). But I've given you two big reasons why its different.

1. The leaders of the 3 biggest European countries/ economies have all gone in person to Ukraine/ Russia within the last month or two to attempt to mediate the situation. Going in person for a leader of the country is obviously a bit of a step up from having a video call.

2. Some countries have advised their citizens to leave the country entirely. This includes some NATO members (Germany, USA, Latvia, Norway) and some non NATO countries (Australia, NZ, Japan). Many NATO members (France, Poland, Romania, Turkey) have not so there is not some uniform approach, nor do I think the Americans really care that much about what happens to German or Italian citizens in Ukraine if things do go south.

As far as I'm aware NATO haven't made a suggestion to their members to tell their citizens to evacuate but would be willing to be corrected of course.

This doesn't mean anything will actually happen. But clearly something is a bit different to last April. And its not just sabre-rattling from the 'Anglo-Saxons' as some people have strangely suggested.
 
africanspur said:
Then I think we're kind of going round in circles here.

Your initial question was why are people thinking this is any different to April of last year, when Russia had already massed troops by the Ukraine border.

I don't know if Putin ever intended to/ ever will invade. And as I said, I certainly don't share the lust for making a point that some on here appear to (I'm sure without any personal risk to most of them of course). But I've given you two big reasons why its different.

1. The leaders of the 3 biggest European countries/ economies have all gone in person to Ukraine/ Russia within the last month or two to attempt to mediate the situation. Going in person for a leader of the country is obviously a bit of a step up from having a video call.

2. Some countries have advised their citizens to leave the country entirely. This includes some NATO members (Germany, USA, Latvia, Norway) and some non NATO countries (Australia, NZ, Japan). Many NATO members (France, Poland, Romania, Turkey) have not so there is not some uniform approach, nor do I think the Americans really care that much about what happens to German or Italian citizens in Ukraine if things do go south.

As far as I'm aware NATO haven't made a suggestion to their members to tell their citizens to evacuate but would be willing to be corrected of course.

This doesn't mean anything will actually happen. But clearly something is a bit different to last April. And its not just sabre-rattling from the 'Anglo-Saxons' as some people have strangely suggested.
Click to expand...

And my question what is that something. It's a literal question and yes we are going in circle.
 
JPRouve said:
And my question what is that something. It's a literal question and yes we are going in circle.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I'm not privy to intelligence from German, British, French and American intelligence services.

I assume those leaders are and are making decisions to visit the region to defuse and advising their citizens to leave based on that.

I'm going to go by that rather than being ah armchair general and talking about locations of various different BTG.

I'm surprised though that you seem to be suggesting that it's normal for the leaders of thr UK, France and Germany to all go physically somewhere within a month of each other.
 
africanspur said:
I'm not sure, I'm not privy to intelligence from German, British, French and American intelligence services.

I assume those leaders are and are making decisions to visit the region to defuse and advising their citizens to leave based on that.

I'm going to go by that rather than being ah armchair general and talking about locations of various different BTG.

I'm surprised though that you seem to be suggesting that it's normal for the leaders of thr UK, France and Germany to all go physically somewhere within a month of each other.
Click to expand...

I didn't, to that question I answered that I didn't know. You are suprised about something I didn't suggest.
 
Bobcat said:
Not really updated on Russian domestic politics, but if hes willing to go that far he must be getting really fecking desperate, or hes simply gone mental
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say desperate. Completely and utterly unhinged — his behavior, already very, very authoritarian , had drastically changed after the whole story with the failed assassination of Navalny. The latter made everything public and Putin decided that he won’t even try to keep up a facade of legality and simply turned everything (be it repressions inside the country or foreign politics) up a notch.
 
I'm pretty sure this isn't happening. As far as I can tell, the Russians always ensured they had some semblance of plausible deniability for whatever they're doing.

To claim so publicly that they're withdrawing troops and then attack anyway...I'd be really surprised if they'd be that brazen.
 
VorZakone said:
I'm pretty sure this isn't happening. As far as I can tell, the Russians always ensured they had some semblance of plausible deniability for whatever they're doing.

To claim so publicly that they're withdrawing troops and then attack anyway...I'd be really surprised if they'd be that brazen.
Click to expand...

I don't think any public statements/claims should be taken seriously in any way tbh they talk shit for breakfast. I share the view this likely isn't happening however, there's just no scenario I can think of where it ends up a positive for Putin.

The threat of invasion though does serve a purpose in crippling Ukraine's economy and way of life. They really are going to extreme lengths to maximise this threat.

The other possible gain from this situation is how they have solidified their control over Belarus, it seems to be pretty much accepted worldwide now that Belarus is a de-facto Russian territory.
 
Do we have any Russians here who can give a Russian perspective instead of third parties?
 
Foxbatt said:
Do we have any Russians here who can give a Russian perspective instead of third parties?
Click to expand...

Yes @harms , who has posted extensively on this thread and who you have already had a discussion with (seemingly calling them American and not realising they were Russian when their views perhaps did not align with what you feel Russians should be feeling).

@Paxi is also of Russian origin.
 
JPRouve said:
I didn't, to that question I answered that I didn't know. You are suprised about something I didn't suggest.
Click to expand...

But in this context, is the most logical assumption then that, regardless of the fact that all 3 leaders have different approaches to things and talk in different ways, they may know something is a bit different from last April and have therefore had to step up diplomatic efforts in a way that wasn't quite as acute back then?
 
By the way, Peskov (Putin’s mustache/mouthpiece) has just said that officially recognizing DNR & LNR would be a direct violation of Minsk agreement — with an obvious connotation behind the statement. As Russia mainly accuses Ukraine of violating the terms of the same agreement.

This goes very much in tact with most of the analysis that I’ve been reading on the matter that Duma’s suggestion will unlikely be backed up by Putin. Having DNR & LNR reintegrated back into Ukraine makes much more sense long-term since it gives him a reliable tool of influencing its internal policy. And also saves twenty billion $ in the process since he won’t be responsible for rebuilding both region’s industry basically from the ground up.
 
Simbo said:
The threat of invasion though does serve a purpose in crippling Ukraine's economy and way of life. They really are going to extreme lengths to maximise this threat.
Click to expand...
It also cripples Russia’s economy massively — not as much as it does Ukraine’s, but it’s certainly not the situation where the time is clearly on Russia’s side.
 
africanspur said:
But in this context, is the most logical assumption then that, regardless of the fact that all 3 leaders have different approaches to things and talk in different ways, they may know something is a bit different from last April and have therefore had to step up diplomatic efforts in a way that wasn't quite as acute back then?
Click to expand...

But I accept your assumptions, you can assume what you want and I ask the questions. The two aren't mutually exclusive and if anything it would be a bit daft to not do both when we are conversing, we assume, ask questions and suppose. Now maybe I shouldn't ask questions.
 
africanspur said:
Yes @harms , who has posted extensively on this thread and who you have already had a discussion with (seemingly calling them American and not realising they were Russian when their views perhaps did not align with what you feel Russians should be feeling).

@Paxi is also of Russian origin.
Click to expand...
We’ll I got told to get back to Russia, in this thread already, as I am sympathetic to people of DNR and LNR — so I’ll just keep my views private from now on. :lol:

I don’t support a war, though, and I also believe that every country has the right to self-determination. Saying that, it’s absolutely bonkers to think that Russia will not look after her geopolitical interests - that’s not to say I agree with how they go about it. I think we’re big bullies essentially just as Americans and Chinese are — it comes with the territory.
 
harms said:
It also cripples Russia’s economy massively — not as much as it does Ukraine’s, but it’s certainly not the situation where the time is clearly on Russia’s side.
Click to expand...

True, though I'm not convinced that overly matters to Putin in the scheme of things. The Russian people take the cost as always.
 
africanspur said:
Yes @harms , who has posted extensively on this thread and who you have already had a discussion with (seemingly calling them American and not realising they were Russian when their views perhaps did not align with what you feel Russians should be feeling).

@Paxi is also of Russian origin.
Click to expand...

He said he was from Poland if my memory serves me right. I mean someone living in Russia right now.
 
Simbo said:
You don’t think all think right-wing movements are influenced/supported/funded/created by Russia?
Click to expand...
It's a strange kind of argument when people say the same about left-wing movements. So they fund those that are hostile to them and those that are not as hostile? In reality, their influence is minimal. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with China. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with Russia. The first is Republican and the second is Democrat. Behind the scenes the US state department is waging continuous war via proxy and direct containment against each.
 
TheReligion said:
Russia seem to be removing troops from the area however NATO aren’t buying it.
Click to expand...

Probably because there's no evidence of it and everything Putin's regime says is presumed to be a lie, disinformation, or a stalling tactic unless proved otherwise.
 
I think Russia was one of the first countries to recognise the destructive potential of social media and probably the first country to create a whole underground operation targeting them (the infamous "troll farms" of Prigozhin) — first domestically (I think it began around 2007-2008 when most of the political debate happened on livejournal) and later world-wide. But I think that their influence has widely diminished and most of the stuff happens on its own (see the second part of this comment). I'd say that RT is actually a more prominent outlet for Russian propaganda abroad than the troll farms at the moment (although they're usually working together).

Simbo said:
You don’t think all think right-wing movements are influenced/supported/funded/created by Russia?

Breitbart, infowars, Cambridge analytica, Parler, everything the Mercer’s fund. They all have links to Russia. Everything NewsCorp owns all sing the Russian party line. All the main far-right politicians in Europe seem to be compromised, even Farage was spewing Putins words on GBN couple days ago.

Then there’s wikileaks and the NRA also appears to have been taken over by Russian money. I could go on.
Click to expand...
You kinda have to separate cause and effect. Not every right-wing movement on the West is being influenced by Russia directly. I'm pretty sure that very few of those movements are actually consciously in cahoots with Russia.

Russia obviously sees any outlet that contributes to political radicalisation on the West as a potential tool to use in their never-ending quest of destabilising the opposing political powers. Sometimes they'll provide funds or technical support. But mostly it's just the case of intersecting interests — conspiracy nuts and hype-chasing far right (or left on rarer occasions) see a story that fits their narrative (anti-establishment, anti-SJW, anti-vax etc.) and run with it. Russia sees that it works and finds or, more likely, fabricates similar ones and push them forward through their own channels to make it reach the likes of Joe Rogan etc.

The most notable example would be the anti-vax campaign that RT launched in Germany*, pushing forward tons of unproven & speculative articles written by bogus experts (which eventually led to RT getting banned there, I believe)... that backfired in an interesting way — in Russia many anti-vax movements began linking to those foreign sources (that were originally planted abroad by RT) and using it as a proof of their stupid concept (a foreign expert surely knows best!), leading to Russia having one of the worst (as in, the most successful) anti-vax movements in the world. Even though Russian government were pushing hard to get everyone inside the country vaccinated.

* for no reason whatsoever other than to feck with the West and to show that our vaccine (Sputnik is surprisingly decent by the way) and our way of dealing with COVID is better than the Western one.
 
Raoul said:
Probably because there's no evidence of it and everything Putin's regime says is presumed to be a lie, disinformation, or a stalling tactic unless proved otherwise.
Click to expand...

He can move them back easily, and it'll mean nothing. The infrastructure remains currently. BTG's generally move by train, which are rapid.

Mciahel Goodman said:
It's a strange kind of argument when people say the same about left-wing movements. So they fund those that are hostile to them and those that are not as hostile? In reality, their influence is minimal. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with China. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with Russia. The first is Republican and the second is Democrat. Behind the scenes the US state department is waging continuous war via proxy and direct containment against each.
Click to expand...

Where? :lol: I want one credible source showing anybody wants direct war with Russia or China. Not even John Bolton was that batshit crazy.

harms said:
I think Russia was one of the first countries to recognise the destructive potential of social media and probably the first country to create a whole underground operation targeting them (the infamous "troll farms" of Prigozhin) — first domestically (I think it began around 2007-2008 when most of the political debate happened on livejournal) and later world-wide. But I think that their influence has widely diminished and most of the stuff happens on its own (see the second part of this comment). I'd say that RT is actually a more prominent outlet for Russian propaganda abroad than the troll farms at the moment (although they're usually working together).


You kinda have to separate cause and effect. Not every right-wing movement on the West is being influenced by Russia directly. I'm pretty sure that very few of those movements are actually consciously in cahoots with Russia.

Russia obviously sees any outlet that contributes to political radicalisation on the West as a potential tool to use in their never-ending quest of destabilising the opposing political powers. Sometimes they'll provide funds or technical support. But mostly it's just the case of intersecting interests — conspiracy nuts and hype-chasing far right (or left on rarer occasions) see a story that fits their narrative (anti-establishment, anti-SJW, anti-vax etc.) and run with it. Russia sees that it works and finds or, more likely, fabricates similar ones and push them forward through their own channels to make it reach the likes of Joe Rogan etc.

The most notable example would be the anti-vax campaign that RT launched in Germany, pushing forward tons of unproven & speculative articles written by bogus experts (which eventually led to RT getting banned there, I believe)... that backfired in an interesting way — in Russia many anti-vax movements began linking to those foreign sources (that were originally planted abroad by RT) and using it as a proof of their stupid concept (a foreign expert surely knows best!), leading to Russia having one of the worst (as in, the most successful) anti-vax movements in the world. Even though Russian government were pushing hard to get everyone inside the country vaccinated.
Click to expand...

What kind of level do you think these sort of things are sanctioned at? I can't imagine that specific example getting up to Putin and him thinking it was a particularly good idea. Which would lead me to think there's a degree of operational autonomy within the 'destabilisation directorates,' which may be working less directly for the 'benefit of russia' and moreso for 'the benefit of an unmentioned group/person.' And if there is this degree of decentralised autonomy, is this Putin granting blat for oligarchs/others to profit, or is it a sign of weakness for him. It's really off topic, but I know nothing about it and it's pretty interesting.

One [in the west] imagines the organs of the Russian state as directly under Putins control and completely centralised in a sort of Trumpian way. I'm sure it's not that way at all, but as I said, I know nothing...
 
owlo said:
Where? :lol: I want one credible source showing anybody wants direct war with Russia or China. Not even John Bolton was that batshit crazy.
Click to expand...
Did you sleep through the Trump presidency? Four years of sabre rattling against China whilst being accused of being too soft on Russia. The exact paradigm that rules the US today, regardless of who is in power. And no one is saying direct. The wars are being fought economically via sanctions and if they go hot it will be via proxy as (potentially) in Ukraine.

The fact is that the United States is one corporate empire with two democratic parties that serve its foreign interests. Little things change internally (or used to) depending on which party is elected, but externally the State Department continues as if nothing had changed. So the Trump administration imposes the most amount of sanctions on Russia but does it against its will, apparently, which means what? That the state apparatus continues more or less unfettered in its course regardless of who is or is not in power.

There is actual evidence on both these fronts, so if you want I can return and post it. I probably will anyway.

But note that https://journal-neo.org/2013/10/18/the-us-asia-pivot-and-containment-of-china/

The strategy of "containing" China began under Obama's administration and was ramped up under Trump's. Yet it is only Trump who people remember as being anti-Chinese. The strategy of expanding NATO began under Clinton, continued under Bush, and here we are today. In foreign affairs, it's rare that a president matters so much that they alter the course entirely.
 
owlo said:
What kind of level do you think these sort of things are sanctioned at? I can't imagine that specific example getting up to Putin and him thinking it was a particularly good idea. Which would lead me to think there's a degree of operational autonomy within the 'destabilisation directorates,' which may be working less directly for the 'benefit of russia' and moreso for 'the benefit of an unmentioned group/person.' And if there is this degree of decentralised autonomy, is this Putin granting blat for oligarchs/others to profit, or is it a sign of weakness for him. It's really off topic, but I know nothing about it and it's pretty interesting.

One [in the west] imagines the organs of the Russian state as directly under Putins control and completely centralised in a sort of Trumpian way. I'm sure it's not that way at all, but as I said, I know nothing...
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that Putin only sanctions a very broad general line (as in to destabilise political systems of NATO and the collective West), he certainly doesn't have an operational control (not that he can't have one, it's just not big enough for him to bother about).

As for the anti-vax idea, it was certainly a general line that got his approval though — Russia pushed very hard to get Sputnik to be the first approved vaccine in the world (by bypassing a few of the stages of the approval process — it worked in this case but it could've led to a lot of trouble; and, in a way it did — a lot of Russians don't trust the vaccine because it was so politicised & clearly rushed to get that sweet "first COVID vaccine" title for themselves) and then, when the rest of the World weren't approving it while pushing forward the alternatives (Moderna, Pfaizer etc.), it became a hurtful and pointless stalemate where we needed not only to prove the effectiveness of Sputnik (funnily enough, the only reliable and open results about its effectiveness we have came from abroad — Argentina, San Marino & the likes; Russia still haven't openly published all of the tests even though it's clearly effective), but also to discredit his opponents. Which led to the things like RT & their smearing campaigns that tried to discredit Western vaccines... but if you criticise multiple vaccines, especially using mostly made-up arguments and targeting a very specific (and not very bright) audience... it can backfire and turn back on vaccines in general and Sputnik specifically. Which it did.

As for the hierarchy of Russian power structure... I wouldn't use the word oligarchs by the way, it's an outdated term that still carries around from the 90's/early 00's. Even though the few of the ex-oligarchs remains, they're not independent figures anymore and a lot of them don't even technically operate as businessmen. Anyway, back to it. It's very centralised and extremely depended on the figure of Putin... but, at the same time, Putin himself is very isolated, not only from the general population, but also from different power institutions that exists in Russia's internal politics. So there's always an internal struggle for his attention and favour. And everyone that holds any power whatsoever tries to do what he thinks Putin wants him to do... but very few actually get what he wants to do — and often the positions of power aren't occupied by the most competent or intelligent people around, which leads to a very chaotic and often self-destructive mid-level political activity that consequently often leads to catastrophic results (be it for the country or for a poor guy that made the wrong move, thinking that he was doing the right one). From time to time Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, will pop up with a peculiarly worded comment or two about what's been happening over the past weeks — and everyone tries to decypher what he had meant, who's doing well, who's doing poorly and what should we all do next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.