Rossticus said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

The corollary here is that 20 years from now China offers Mexico a sweet deal to join a mutual alliance and once agreed China can put hundreds of thousands of troops and weapons in Mexico, maybe right on the border.

If you are America, how do you respond?

Mexico has always been our sphere of influence, we've had the Monroe Doctrine, but Mexico may also feel like we've screwed them around at times (taking half their territory in the 1800s) and want to link up with China.

How do you think we'd respond?

---

That's such a stretch it's not even funny. Is China in the same region as Mexico? Is China contiguous to Mexico? Has the US recently attacked Mexico and annexed parts of Mexico? Is America an authoritarian autocracy who has stated their goal of annexing Mexico?

---

I'm not sure what the point of these questions is. The analogy comes from John Mearshimer in a talk he gave a few years back. I will see if I can dig it up.
https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsheimer

If anything his analogy dramatically understates the problem for Russia, because the Rus people founded Kiev in the 800s and historically (like, for 1,000+ years) that was a part of Russia.

https://t.co/R1kXhjfcZk

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

So if they're wrong again, when does the WH stop with this *****

Maybe when all signs no long point to an imminent invasion

Irish 2.0 said:

---

https://t.co/R1kXhjfcZk

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

So if they're wrong again, when does the WH stop with this *****

---

I think it would take a reduction of 10-20k troops for them to lighten up. Anything less is window dressing. More would be a very, very welcome development.

GAC06 said:

---

Maybe when all signs no long point to an imminent invasion

---

The invasion has been imminent and going to happen any day now for over two weeks. Putin is embarrassing our intelligence agencies right now

Irish 2.0 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Maybe when all signs no long point to an imminent invasion

---

The invasion has been imminent and going to happen any day now for over two weeks. Putin is embarrassing our intelligence agencies right now

---

I don't think so. It's been a war of misinformation thus far. US has been blowing smoke just like Putin.

Serotonin said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

The corollary here is that 20 years from now China offers Mexico a sweet deal to join a mutual alliance and once agreed China can put hundreds of thousands of troops and weapons in Mexico, maybe right on the border.

If you are America, how do you respond?

Mexico has always been our sphere of influence, we've had the Monroe Doctrine, but Mexico may also feel like we've screwed them around at times (taking half their territory in the 1800s) and want to link up with China.

How do you think we'd respond?

---

That's such a stretch it's not even funny. Is China in the same region as Mexico? Is China contiguous to Mexico? Has the US recently attacked Mexico and annexed parts of Mexico? Is America an authoritarian autocracy who has stated their goal of annexing Mexico?

---

I'm not sure what the point of these questions is. The analogy comes from John Mearshimer in a talk he gave a few years back. I will see if I can dig it up.
https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsheimer

If anything his analogy dramatically understates the problem for Russia, because the Rus people founded Kiev in the 800s and historically (like, for 1,000+ years) that was a part of Russia.

---

While you can make the analogy work I still think it's a stretch because

1) there's no modern existential threat from the US that justifies it.

2) Historical ownership of lands and establishment of cities can't be an allowable pretext for war against independent nations in a modern world. It's particularly antithetical to modern western democratic values. Lots of cities in the US not established by the US if you want to legitimize that can of worms.

3) There is no natural regional fit or justification for a Mexi-Chino military alliance. NATO, while including the US, was historically created following the last world war as a multilateral defensive military means of deterrence to any country in that region who would seek to similarly attack its neighbors.

Russia is threatened by NATO because it has outwardly stated goals of attacking, destabilizing, annexing its neighbors and has done so in Belarus and in limited fashion in Ukraine and Georgia while also wishing to further do so in Ukraine and other Baltic states.

That's in no way analogous to Mexico, China, US unless you force a flimsy round peg into a square hole and pretend that it fits.

“The Ukrainian delegation to the Tripartite Contact Group (TCG) reports that, unfortunately, the extraordinary meeting of the TCG convened at 6 pm on February 18, 2022 at the initiative of the OSCE Coordinator in the TCG did not take place due to the refusal of the Russian side:” https://t.co/WclxyWDDdG

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 18, 2022

You mean Russia says they want to negotiate but when the opportunity presents itself to be taken seriously they won't show up? It's like they don't actually want to negotiate in good faith. UNPOSSIBLE!

I know. It's positively shocking. Also, unsurprisingly the Russians continue to push the genocide narrative.

Well they finally said it. https://t.co/LhVyV1tUsE

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 18, 2022

Irish 2.0 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Maybe when all signs no long point to an imminent invasion

---

The invasion has been imminent and going to happen any day now for over two weeks. Putin is embarrassing our intelligence agencies right now

---

Capable of launching an invasion and deployed into an invasion formation are two very different things. Yeah they've been building troops and capabilities and moving significantly more forces into the theatre for two weeks but we didn't really see them move up to the border fully until Wednesday. There has been a significant decrease in the amount of available video and pictures in the whole region in the last 48 hours. Whatever that means, I couldn't tell you. But one thing I can tell you is that we haven't seen this much force amassed on a border or in country since at least the 90's. I think Kosovo/B&G was probably half or less the forces arrayed here. It's a LOT of hardware, men, and money spent on a bluff. Russia doesn't have those resources to spend on nothing. So what's the endgame here? Invasion seems like the only route to get what the Russians want. Maybe we can bluff them off it. It would be expensive. But I'm unsure. A coup de main is a real, real possibility.

"Unfortunately, Yes": Separatist Leader In 'Donetsk Republic' Says Things Moving Towards War: RIA

FRIDAY, FEB 18, 2022 - 11:10 AM

(Update 12:30 ET): Russia's RIA is now reporting that the head of the Russian-backed Donetsk People's Republic, when asked whether things are moving towards war, said "unfortunately, yes."

Meanwhile, Donetsk Republic separatists say they plan to evacuate approximately 700,000 people to Russia.

Okay this makes more sense. That car bomb from above is the car for the Donbas security chief.

Pretty good OSI follow on the awfulness of Twitter.

I'd also look for an unscheduled or sudden speech from Putin as a bad sign. I imagine he will make some last minute demands and then use that as provocation.

Quote:

---

Russia is threatened by NATO because it has outwardly stated goals of attacking, destabilizing, annexing its neighbors and has done so in Belarus while wishing to do so in Ukraine and other Baltic states.

---

1. Ukraine is not a Baltic state. The Baltic states have already been annexed by NATO.

2. Destabilizing???

Ukraine had a literal coup where the government was overthrown after they decided to ally with Russia and not the EU. Soros is pouring money into that and Obama's CIA director visited Ukraine two months after the coup.

I've also heard that a Biden family member might have had some dealings in Ukraine.

You really think Russia is the only destabilizing force there?

UKRAINE TOP SECURITY OFFICIAL DANILOV SAYS WE DO NOT SEE A FULL-SCALE INVASION OF THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is threatened by NATO because it has outwardly stated goals of attacking, destabilizing, annexing its neighbors and has done so in Belarus while wishing to do so in Ukraine and other Baltic states.

---

1. Ukraine is not a Baltic state. The Baltic states have already been annexed by NATO.

2. Destabilizing???

Ukraine had a literal coup where the government was overthrown after they decided to ally with Russia and not the EU. Soros is pouring money into that and Obama's CIA director visited Ukraine two months after the coup.

I've also heard that a Biden family member might have had some dealings in Ukraine.

You really think Russia is the only destabilizing force there?

---

Was not trying to indicate Ukraine as a Baltic state. Typing this on my iPhone and the syntax/punctuation doesn't always come out like I intend. However, one of Putin's ultimate goals is rollback of NATO membership to 1997, rescinding the membership of many existing NATO members that Putin wishes to exert control over.

Have you even looked at Putin's demands relative to this potential conflict?

And Ukraine kicked the pro Putin puppet out once it was clear what was happening. They then took a hard left turn toward EU an NATO because they want to be free and sovereign and not an owned property of Russia.

Many of your arguments don't speak directly to the issue of Putin invading a sovereign, independent nation that poses no existential security risk.

The US would have a greater justification for invasion of Mexico right now on that front than Putin does for Ukraine. Did for Crimea. Did for Georgia.

You're sitting here making excuses for Vladimir Putin which is wholly incredible.

rangerdanger said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Maybe when all signs no long point to an imminent invasion

---

The invasion has been imminent and going to happen any day now for over two weeks. Putin is embarrassing our intelligence agencies right now

---

I don't think so. It's been a war of misinformation thus far. US has been blowing smoke just like Putin.

---

We have moved fighters and bombers to a country East of Germany. It's not going away.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

UKRAINE TOP SECURITY OFFICIAL DANILOV SAYS WE DO NOT SEE A FULL-SCALE INVASION OF THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

---

Every idiot knows that. It's impractical and unwise for Russia to conduct a countrywide invasion and occupation. It will be limited to areas of strategic benefit.

Rossticus said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

UKRAINE TOP SECURITY OFFICIAL DANILOV SAYS WE DO NOT SEE A FULL-SCALE INVASION OF THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

---

Every idiot knows that. It's impractical and unwise for Russia to conduct a countrywide invasion and occupation. It will be limited to areas of strategic benefit.

---

Maybe also a diversionary attack from Belarus into the part of Ukraine west of the Dnieper river.

Or at least that's how this armchair general would go about it.

Head of the LNR posted a video about evacuation on the state news outlet, but the metadata shows that the file was created two days ago (Telegram retains metadata). Testing some other videos on the channel to see other creation dates, will post below.https://t.co/yJ5jj5cD7q

— Aric Toler (@AricToler) February 18, 2022

Rossticus said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is threatened by NATO because it has outwardly stated goals of attacking, destabilizing, annexing its neighbors and has done so in Belarus while wishing to do so in Ukraine and other Baltic states.

---

1. Ukraine is not a Baltic state. The Baltic states have already been annexed by NATO.

2. Destabilizing???

Ukraine had a literal coup where the government was overthrown after they decided to ally with Russia and not the EU. Soros is pouring money into that and Obama's CIA director visited Ukraine two months after the coup.

I've also heard that a Biden family member might have had some dealings in Ukraine.

You really think Russia is the only destabilizing force there?

---

Was not trying to indicate Ukraine as a Baltic state. Typing this on my iPhone and the syntax/punctuation doesn't always come out like I intend. However, one of Putin's ultimate goals is rollback of NATO membership to 1997, rescinding the membership of many existing NATO members that Putin wishes to exert control over.

Have you even looked at Putin's demands relative to this potential conflict?

And Ukraine kicked the pro Putin puppet out once it was clear what was happening. They then took a hard left turn toward EU an NATO because they want to be free and sovereign and not an owned property of Russia.

Many of your arguments don't speak directly to the issue of Putin invading a sovereign, independent nation that poses no existential security risk.

The US would have a greater justification for invasion of Mexico right now on that front than Putin does for Ukraine. Did for Crimea. Did for Georgia.

You're sitting here making excuses for Vladimir Putin which is wholly incredible.

---

You are giving Putin way too much credit here. He's not some brilliant mastermind like, um, Soros.

By invading Crimea he essentially cut off the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine from the Ukranian political process. He gave the pro-EU forces the permanent majority and control over the State.

Have you ever read about the partition of Ireland after WWI? The British cut off three counties from Ulster, keeping the six that would ensure a permanent Protestant majority. Brilliant. But Putin executed the same move for the benefit of the other side. Dumb.

We could shut this entire conflict down by saying to Russia: "Your existential fears of Ukraine joining NATO are unfounded, we will not extend NATO membership."

Please, please read up on the history here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

BREAKING: Ukraine's Defense Intelligence reports that Russian security services have planted explosives near Donetsk's infrastructure, urging residents to stay at home.

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) February 18, 2022

Not saying that Putin is a mastermind. I think myself and a few others are saying it's clear he has a plan, what the specifics are I'm not sure. But he is clearly working from a plan. It has worked for him to limited success so far in Ukraine and Georgia and elsewhere and he will run his playbook until a major setback.

His only plan is to try to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. At that point he's completely boxed in and the only way out is forging stronger alliances with China moving forward.

Why we want that result is beyond me.

We should be positioning Russia, Turkey and India against China. Iran is a lost cause until they get a regime change.

Ultimately we get a very one-sided view from our media (courtesy of an extremely neoliberal/globalist State Dept) and the result is attitudes like you see expressed in this thread.

Every war is framed as a moral struggle between the forces of democracy and light on one side and evil and darkness on the other. That justifies our involvement.

This playbook has been used over and over and over again. Part of the process is that you can never, for a second, consider the other side's perspective. That must be shut down.

GTdad said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

UKRAINE TOP SECURITY OFFICIAL DANILOV SAYS WE DO NOT SEE A FULL-SCALE INVASION OF THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) February 18, 2022

---

Every idiot knows that. It's impractical and unwise for Russia to conduct a countrywide invasion and occupation. It will be limited to areas of strategic benefit.

---

Maybe also a diversionary attack from Belarus into the part of Ukraine west of the Dnieper river.

Or at least that's how this armchair general would go about it.

---

Good point. They have a lot of assets deployed to Belarus and the big man himself is there to oversee "exercises".

Serotonin said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

Russia is threatened by NATO because it has outwardly stated goals of attacking, destabilizing, annexing its neighbors and has done so in Belarus while wishing to do so in Ukraine and other Baltic states.

---

1. Ukraine is not a Baltic state. The Baltic states have already been annexed by NATO.

2. Destabilizing???

Ukraine had a literal coup where the government was overthrown after they decided to ally with Russia and not the EU. Soros is pouring money into that and Obama's CIA director visited Ukraine two months after the coup.

I've also heard that a Biden family member might have had some dealings in Ukraine.

You really think Russia is the only destabilizing force there?

---

Was not trying to indicate Ukraine as a Baltic state. Typing this on my iPhone and the syntax/punctuation doesn't always come out like I intend. However, one of Putin's ultimate goals is rollback of NATO membership to 1997, rescinding the membership of many existing NATO members that Putin wishes to exert control over.

Have you even looked at Putin's demands relative to this potential conflict?

And Ukraine kicked the pro Putin puppet out once it was clear what was happening. They then took a hard left turn toward EU an NATO because they want to be free and sovereign and not an owned property of Russia.

Many of your arguments don't speak directly to the issue of Putin invading a sovereign, independent nation that poses no existential security risk.

The US would have a greater justification for invasion of Mexico right now on that front than Putin does for Ukraine. Did for Crimea. Did for Georgia.

You're sitting here making excuses for Vladimir Putin which is wholly incredible.

---

You are giving Putin way too much credit here. He's not some brilliant mastermind like, um, Soros.

By invading Crimea he essentially cut off the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine from the Ukranian political process. He gave the pro-EU forces the permanent majority and control over the State.

Have you ever read about the partition of Ireland after WWI? The British cut off three counties from Ulster, keeping the six that would ensure a permanent Protestant majority. Brilliant. But Putin executed the same move for the benefit of the other side. Dumb.

We could shut this entire conflict down by saying to Russia: "Your existential fears of Ukraine joining NATO are unfounded, we will not extend NATO membership."

Please, please read up on the history here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

---

Don't patronize me. I'm well aware of Putin's beef over those perceived promises. We don't owe him a damn thing at this point after he's proven himself as a bad actor over decades.

And by doing such you utterly invalidate yourself as a deterrent military alliance. You'd be broadcasting to the world that under threat of force you're willing to crawfish on your stated principles. That would be the most idiotic thing to do and would render NATO worthless and without credibility. Then Vlad would just keep pushing. That's Obama level limp and stupid.

Serotonin said:

---

His only plan is to try to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. At that point he's completely boxed in and the only way out is forging stronger alliances with China moving forward.

Why we want that result is beyond me.

We should be positioning Russia, Turkey and India against China. Iran is a lost cause until they get a regime change.

Ultimately we get a very one-sided view from our media (courtesy of an extremely neoliberal/globalist State Dept) and the result is attitudes like you see expressed in this thread.

Every war is framed as a moral struggle between the forces of democracy and light on one side and evil and darkness on the other. That justifies our involvement.

This playbook has been used over and over and over again. Part of the process is that you can never, for a second, consider the other side's perspective. That must be shut down.

---

Thinking that that's all he wants and will then be satisfied and behave himself and go home and play nice is insanely gullible. I refuse to believe that you actually think that. Because almost literally nobody thinks that.

And Russia will not position against China while Putin lives and breathes because that would involve abandoning his most fervent goals and getting over his substantial bitterness towards the US and Europe. Unless you're advocating for full capitulation to ALL of his demands… in which case he may or may not decide to stab us in the back anyway.

Being in an alliance with Putin led Russia is unwise and imprudent at best. Not a wagon that any western democracy wants to be hitched to.

Of course we get a one sided view, hell half the media types could barely understand the ethnic composition let alone the history of the region. Think any of these people have read more than a 2-3 paragraph blurb on the Crimean War? Or understand the impact of the Ottoman Empire in the area? Or even know that Duranty whitewashed the genocide on the Ukrainian people that led to resettlement of Russians in the eastern half? No they know nothing.

That doesn't mean that Putin's only plan is to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO. That doesn't mean that failing to provide real meaningful material support here won't have wider implications and consequences (see the failure to vote on aid to South Vietnam).

Again I'm not saying we should send air groups from Mountain Home or empty out Fort Hood. I don't personally want a single boot on the ground over there.

I also agree that we should be trying to reorient others against China which is clearly our biggest geopolitical problem. However giving Europe a reason to bail on the US is really really poor reason to ignore Putin and the immediacy of this threat.

Beautifully stated.

Putin has added to his list of demands, and it looks like the long-awaited false flag operation in underway in the Donbas to justify invasion. PRECIPICE

Serotonin said:

---

His only plan is to try to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. At that point he's completely boxed in and the only way out is forging stronger alliances with China moving forward.

Why we want that result is beyond me.

We should be positioning Russia, Turkey and India against China. Iran is a lost cause until they get a regime change.

Ultimately we get a very one-sided view from our media (courtesy of an extremely neoliberal/globalist State Dept) and the result is attitudes like you see expressed in this thread.

Every war is framed as a moral struggle between the forces of democracy and light on one side and evil and darkness on the other. That justifies our involvement.

This playbook has been used over and over and over again. Part of the process is that you can never, for a second, consider the other side's perspective. That must be shut down.

---

BINGO

Except "the other side" is literally just Putin. No. You don't have to consider the feelings of the other side when all decisions are made unilaterally by an authoritarian autocrat. He's butthurt and wants the USSR back. He's not negotiating in good faith. He's not willing to put anything on the table. His acceptable course of negotiations are as follows: 1) We make concessions. 2) He accepts concessions. 3) Repeat step 1.

What is he offering other than to not start a war? That's called coercion and capitulation. Tough tits. Eat bricks.

Rossticus said:

---

2) Historical ownership of lands and establishment of cities can't be an allowable pretext for war against independent nations in a modern world. It's particularly antithetical to modern western democratic values. Lots of cities in the US not established by the US if you want to legitimize that can of worms.

---

It is not like you have to go back to the Rus. Sevastopol was built by Catherine the Great. The Crimea has been part of Russia for longer than America existed. The only period it was not part of either the Russian Empire or USSR was the period from 1991-2014. And it should be noted that the people of Crimea were agitating to rejoin Russia since 1991. The coup simply provided a legal pretext for both Crimea and Russia to get what they always wanted.

The current situation for Russia is dangerous because they have no real control over what happens. Russia doesn't want war, but the West does. Ukraine doesn't really want war either, but they want the money and arms playing ball with Biden might bring them. So they are incentivized to play the dangerous game of trying to push this up to the very brink without going over the line. And with the contact point in the Donbass being armed by Ukrainian Militia who don't like taking orders from Kiev that is a very dangerous game indeed.

Russia can be proactive in giving everyone in the Donbass passports. They can encourage emigration or evacuation. But on the fundamental issue of whether there is going to be a Russian military intervention or not they are stuck in a totally reactive position. Biden Admin and Kiev can force their hand anytime they want with a significant enough provocation.

This is not 1945 or even 1975. Russia cannot take over Europe. Their interests are purely regional. Do you think Putin wants to take over Germany and Sweden?

While that might temporarily relieve Germans and Swedes from their ongoing immigration problem and the rampant climate change and LGBT+ propaganda from the globalist oligarchy, Russia has neither the financial resources or manpower to run such an operation.

What do you think Putin's goals are?

Fundamentally, I have a problem spending American taxpayer money protecting Ukraine's sacred borders (est. 1991) when the Democrats fight any effort to enhance our own border defense. Why are we so concerned with protecting a random tracksuit country from another tracksuit country on the other side of the world while we refuse to construct a simple border wall or properly fund our own border security? Isn't that strange?

We agreed to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity when they gave up their nukes