***** OFFICIAL Russia v. Ukraine *****

1,066,561 Views | 10330 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by TRM
rgag12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

aezmvp said:

Some chatter about Putin making an announcement about Donbass on the 20th.
The Duma has already asked Putin to declare the Donbas region in Ukraine to be independent. Putin will agree and then the Donbas rebel leaders will request Russian army protection.

The rebels will subsequently hold a referendum in which the Donbas people supposedly decide to request annexation by Russia. Putin will agree again.

It will change nothing in the strategic equation, except that Ukraine will be a tiny bit smaller, even more resentful of Russia and will have shed most of its internal Russia sympathizers.

Unintended Consequences


Crimea 2.0. But this time Putin makes it seem like the referendum/annexation is the best option on the table compared to the "invasion" that'd been hyped up for weeks.
Irish 2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rossticus said:

And Zelensky has been wishy washy as hell throughout this as well. What, in your opinion, is actually happening?


I've said as much that they want Donbass and NATO to ensure that they won't let Ukraine in.

Posted this in another thread as well:
I don't see what Russia gains from invasion. EU is over 30% of their GDP. They would be risking all of that and more. IMO this is just an effort to get them not to join NATO and Putin wants some respect. As a kicker Putin and his buddies are laughing in the cigar smoke filled rooms while they clown the Biden Adminstration. If he doesn't invade, he makes our intelligence agencies look like fools on the world's stage.
Louis_Botha
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Irish 2.0 said:

I read the whole sequence. I just don't believe a word coming out of the Biden Administration's mouth considering that Zelensky is on record as telling Biden to STFU.

But go ahead and keep with the insults
that dude has been wrong every step away but acts like he know what he is discussing. Weird flex
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That assumes Ukraine doesn't push back, as they're on record saying that it's unacceptable and won't be tolerated.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Louis_Botha said:

Irish 2.0 said:

I read the whole sequence. I just don't believe a word coming out of the Biden Administration's mouth considering that Zelensky is on record as telling Biden to STFU.

But go ahead and keep with the insults
that dude has been wrong every step away but acts like he know what he is discussing. Weird flex


Hey! Sock boy! Good to see you! Needed some simple levity in the room. You're like the three stooges rolled into one. Love it!

And for the record, I hope I'm totally wrong. Hope this all goes away without serious incident. Wish casting a war would be sick.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aezmvp said:

74OA said:

aezmvp said:

Some chatter about Putin making an announcement about Donbass on the 20th.
The Duma has already asked Putin to declare the Donbas region in Ukraine to be independent. Putin will agree and then the Donbas rebel leaders will request Russian army protection.

The rebels will subsequently hold a referendum in which the Donbas people supposedly decide to request annexation by Russia. Putin will agree again.

It will change nothing in the strategic equation, except that Ukraine will be a tiny bit smaller, even more resentful of Russia and will have shed most of its internal Russian sympathizers.

Unintended Consequences
Not disagreeing. Most might be a stretch. Still a big portion in the south.
Perhaps, but as the article points out, if Ukraine loses the Donbas on top of Crimea, most of the hard-core Russia sympathizers will be gone-with the unintended consequence for Putin of also removing their influence from Ukrainian politics.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60436938

" Russia has been accused of trying to stage a fake crisis in a breakaway eastern region of Ukraine to give it a reason to launch an invasion.

Russian-backed rebel leaders in Donbas announced an evacuation of residents, saying Ukraine had intensified shelling and was planning an attack.

Ukraine has denied planning an offensive, saying Russia was spreading disinformation.

There is no sign of any mass movement of people leaving the region.

It comes as US President Joe Biden said he was "convinced" that Russian President Vladimir Putin had decided to invade Ukraine, and expected it to happen in the coming days. But he added that "until he does, diplomacy is always a possibility".

Moscow, which has massed troops on Ukraine's borders, denies it is planning an invasion.

Leaders of the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk issued their evacuation orders on Friday, telling women, children and the elderly to relocate to Russia, claiming that Ukrainian troops were planning to attack their territories.

Hundreds of thousands of people live in the region, and such evacuation would be a huge undertaking. There is no indication that a mass evacuation is imminent, but Russian state media did report that several buses carrying local residents had made their way to Russia.

Denis Pushilin, head of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR), said Russia had agreed to provide accommodation for people leaving the region, and that women, children and the elderly should be evacuated first.

He announced the evacuation in a video purported to have been filmed on Friday. However, the BBC checked the metadata, which shows it was recorded two days ago - before the flare-up in hostilities.

The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin had ordered that refugee camps be set up near the border and "emergency" aid paid to people arriving from the separatist areas.
Ukraine has repeatedly said it is not planning any attack, and seeks to regain control over the rebel-held areas using only diplomatic means. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on Friday dismissed what he described as "Russian disinformation reports".

Russia has been backing a bloody armed rebellion in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region since 2014. Some 14,000 people - including many civilians - have died in fighting since then.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said events over the past 48 hours were part of Russian efforts to create "false provocations" to justify further "aggression".

The US State Department later called the announcement of evacuations a "cynical" move by Moscow "to distract the world from the fact that Russia is building up its forces in preparation for an attack". And White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the evacuations were an example of Moscow using misinformation as a pretext for war.

On Friday night, Ukraine's military intelligence service said it had received information that explosives had been planted at infrastructure facilities in Donetsk in preparation for a so-called false flag attack - an attack carried out with the intention of blaming an opponent for it.

"These measures are designed to destabilise the situation in the temporarily occupied areas of our country and create a reason to accuse Ukraine of committing terrorist acts," the Ukrainian Defence Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate said on Twitter.

Earlier on Friday, separatist authorities said a parked jeep had been blown up near a government building in Donetsk. US and Ukrainian officials said it was a staged attack designed to stoke tensions.

Mr Putin, meanwhile, said the situation in eastern Ukraine was deteriorating.

At a news conference on Friday, the Russian president made unsubstantiated accusations of "mass and systematic violations of human rights" and enshrining in law "discrimination of the Russian speaking population" in Ukraine.

He told reporters that he remained willing to discuss the crisis in Ukraine with Western leaders, but accused them of ignoring Russia's security concerns, and warned that any deal must include a legally binding pledge that the Nato security alliance will stop its eastward expansion."

aezmvp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming they stop it there.... and don't organize more separatist groups deeper in.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Which is a very optimistic assumption given the track record.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gleiwitz Incident all over again...
RedNeckGamer88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok, so realistically. Let's say Russia invades the Ukraine. In what way does this affect me as an Aggie living in Texas? It seems to me that America has been getting a raw deal in Europe since the end of the cold war. There is no benefit to us defending Europe, they use our promise of unconditional protection to boost their welfare programs and import more refugees instead of spending it on defense. Seems like this conflict could end overnight. All we have to do is promise Russia that the Ukraine cannot join NATO. I totally get why Russia does not want NATO troops on their boarder.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Socks just falling out the drawer.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
rgag12 said:

74OA said:

aezmvp said:

Some chatter about Putin making an announcement about Donbass on the 20th.
The Duma has already asked Putin to declare the Donbas region in Ukraine to be independent. Putin will agree and then the Donbas rebel leaders will request Russian army protection.

The rebels will subsequently hold a referendum in which the Donbas people supposedly decide to request annexation by Russia. Putin will agree again.

It will change nothing in the strategic equation, except that Ukraine will be a tiny bit smaller, even more resentful of Russia and will have shed most of its internal Russia sympathizers.

Unintended Consequences


Crimea 2.0. But this time Putin makes it seem like the referendum/annexation is the best option on the table compared to the "invasion" that'd been hyped up for weeks.
It's well within his means to do both.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FireAg said:

Gleiwitz Incident all over again...
Painfully obvious and a favorite page out of Putin's playbook. But he's really only concerned with justifying his actions in areas where he and allies control the narrative and the information flow. He doesn't give to poops about whether Europe or the US can see through it.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In the immediate future...not much of what happens in Ukraine means much to us...

However, the issue becomes "what's next after Ukraine"? Does Putin stop there?

Hitler slowly took over Europe piece by piece and we turned a blind eye to it until we couldn't ignore it any longer...

The concern is the long game, not the short game...
aezmvp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sure so the immediate problem is significantly higher oil and natural gas prices, an increase in costs for electronics and probably an extra point on inflation in the next 6 months. Over a two year period doing nothing in Ukraine will almost certainly have negative effects in the Middle East and Taiwan as this will be billed as the end of the American Empire and then you'll see stuff get really crazy. Just a guess but a really really really good one.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rossticus said:

FireAg said:

Gleiwitz Incident all over again...
Painfully obvious and a favorite page out of Putin's playbook. But he's really only concerned with justifying his actions in areas where he and allies control the narrative and the information flow. He doesn't give to poops about whether Europe or the US can see through it.


Just look what they did in Georgia. Separatists start artillery attacks, Georgia responds, Russia swoops in (although they had already moved into Georgia) to "protect" the separatists. That plus the mass graves thing, maybe a false flag thrown in.
RedNeckGamer88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's doubtful that Russia will attack any country that already has NATA arrangements for obvious reasons. Ether way, what happens to socialist Europeans does not really concern me. I personally think the US should leave NATA and make the socialist nations of Europe defend themselves. It is clear to me that Europe's social welfare system can only exist on the backs of the American tax payer.
FireAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a catch-22...

I agree that NATO is feckless and a waste of time and resources...

But on the flip side, if Europe slowly capitulates and/or crumbles, it will draw us into a world wide conflict...

As much as we would like to look at this crisis in the Ukraine as something taking place in its own vacuum, history has shown that world wars have resulted from things just like the Russians are about to do...
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FireAg said:

In the immediate future...not much of what happens in Ukraine means much to us...

However, the issue becomes "what's next after Ukraine"? Does Putin stop there?

Hitler slowly took over Europe piece by piece and we turned a blind eye to it until we couldn't ignore it any longer...

The concern is the long game, not the short game...
Europe can stop him if they decide to. They have resources he can't remotely match if they wanted to mobilize.

I doubt they will though because they are a worthless lot. If you won't defend yourself when you more than have the means to, then why should we?
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
duffelpud said:

Written in 2015, this analysis by Phillip Karber helps explain a lot of what's going on...

5 Elements of Russia's New Generation Warfare

POLITICAL SUBVERSION: Insertion of agents; classic "agi-prop" information operations employing modern mass media to exploit ethnic-linguistic-class differences; corruption, compromise and intimidation of local officials; backed up with kidnapping, assassination and terrorism; recruiting discontented elements into a cellular cadre enforced with murderous discipline.

PROXY SANCTUARY: Seizing local governmental centers, police stations, airports and military depots; arming and training insurgents; creating checkpoints and destroying ingress transportation infrastructure; cyberattacks compromising victim communications; phony referendum with single party representation; establishment of a "People's Republic" under Russian tutelage.

INTERVENTION: Deploying of the Russian forces to the border with sudden large-scale exercises involving ground, naval, air and airborne troops; surreptitious introduction of heavy weapons to insurgents; creation of training and logistics camps adjacent to the border; commitment of so-called "volunteer" combined-arms Battalion Tactical Groups; integrating proxy troops into Russian equipped, supported and led higher-level formations.

COERCIVE DETERRENCE: Secret strategic force alerts and snap checks forward deployment of tactical nuclear delivery systems; theater and intercontinental "in your face" maneuvers; aggressive air patrolling of neighboring areas to inhibit their involvement.

NEGOTIATED MANIPULATION: The use and abuse of Western negotiated ceasefires to rearm their proxies; using violations to bleed the opponent's Army while inhibiting other states from helping under the fear of escalation divide the Western alliance by playing economic incentives, selective and repetitive phone negotiations infatuating a favorite security partner.

in other words, the leftist Alinsky playbook used by the BLM and ANTIFA
aezmvp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont disagree that Europe has been getting a free ride for way too long. But the action you suggest would be terribly destabilizing and zero prep work for such a huge change not just in our defense but also our economic posture would be catastrophic in the near to medium term at a minimum and would have ripple effects across the globe. As a starter you would make the Chinese the lone international super power as they would be the only government interested in real economic military and diplomatic power projection. And while you may not think that, every foreign leader and government would read it that way.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FireAg said:

In the immediate future...not much of what happens in Ukraine means much to us...

However, the issue becomes "what's next after Ukraine"? Does Putin stop there?

Hitler slowly took over Europe piece by piece and we turned a blind eye to it until we couldn't ignore it any longer...

The concern is the long game, not the short game...

That's not historically correct.

He negotiated to take the Sudetenland. Then annexed the rest of Czechoslavokia 9 months later.

when he invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 the French and British declared war on 3 September.

only after that did he start to take over Europe (Norway winter 39, the low countries and France in May 1940, Balkans in spring 41, Soviet Union in summer 41)
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FireAg said:

It's a catch-22...

I agree that NATO is feckless and a waste of time and resources...

But on the flip side, if Europe slowly capitulates and/or crumbles, it will draw us into a world wide conflict...

As much as we would like to look at this crisis in the Ukraine as something taking place in its own vacuum, history has shown that world wars have resulted from things just like the Russians are about to do...

plenty of times there were no World Wars when things like this happened. Agadir 1905, Balkans 1911-12, Napoleonic wars, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

US taking over Iraq, US in Vietnam, US in afghanistan. Yugoslavia 1999
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FireAg said:

It's a catch-22...

I agree that NATO is feckless and a waste of time and resources...

But on the flip side, if Europe slowly capitulates and/or crumbles, it will draw us into a world wide conflict...

As much as we would like to look at this crisis in the Ukraine as something taking place in its own vacuum, history has shown that world wars have resulted from things just like the Russians are about to do...


NATO is neither feckless nor a waste of time. NATO should be lauded as the one of the most successful peacekeeping endeavors in human history. It has produced the longest period of peace on the European continent in the history of nation states. It's really unfortunate that we do not value the diplomatic infrastructure built by past generations.

Some European states - looking at you Germany - have absolutely undermined the security of the pact through their short-sighted actions, but the balance of Europe deserves credit for stepping up in this crisis. Real commitments have been made to back Ukraine, especially by the UK and Poland. I think Europe's response so far has exceeded expectations and Putin isn't finding them to be the pushovers he had hoped.
RedNeckGamer88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you really suggesting that if Russia took the Ukraine that the US will lose its economic station in the world? Or are you saying that if NATO was ended and Russia took over a bunch of back water eastern European countries that this would ruin the US and this would somehow prevent us from trading with western Europe? I get that you want the US to be top dog and maintain global hegemony. I guess that is good. But I really don't see that much value in it. Then again, I might just be a dumb millennial. I mean I did waste some time in Iraq and it is clear to me that the US gained nothing after 10 years of trying to spread women's rights, gay acceptance and democracy in the Middle East. I would love for someone to point out what we gained and how it was worth the men lost and the trillions spent. I feel the same way about the Ukraine and Eastern Europe. More people will die if we intervene then if we don't. Like I said, maybe I have a biased view point that leans towards putting Americans first.
TriAg2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FireAg said:

Gleiwitz Incident all over again...


I think it's pretty hilarious that Russia couldn't commit to toasting some junior officer or something as part of their obvious false flag. They've gone soft.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TriAg2010 said:

FireAg said:

It's a catch-22...

I agree that NATO is feckless and a waste of time and resources...

But on the flip side, if Europe slowly capitulates and/or crumbles, it will draw us into a world wide conflict...

As much as we would like to look at this crisis in the Ukraine as something taking place in its own vacuum, history has shown that world wars have resulted from things just like the Russians are about to do...


NATO is neither feckless nor a waste of time. NATO should be lauded as the one of the most successful peacekeeping endeavors in human history. It has produced the longest period of peace on the European continent in the history of nation states. It's really unfortunate that we do not value the diplomatic infrastructure built by past generations.

Some European states - looking at you Germany - have absolutely undermined the security of the pact through their short-sighted actions, but the balance of Europe deserves credit for stepping up in this crisis. Real commitments have been made to back Ukraine, especially by the UK and Poland. I think Europe's response so far has exceeded expectations and Putin isn't finding them to be the pushovers he had hoped.
I valued it when it was relevant and Europe did not have the means to defend itself. It is clearly no longer relevant since Germany has made a strategic decision to voluntarily end their energy independence and make themselves energy dependent on the very country that NATO was created to counter - Russia.

And Europe clearly has the capability and resources to defend itself against a vastly inferior country from an economic and population standpoint. Let's use this as coming out party for the other countries in Europe to own their own fate and police their own backyard. We can start winding down our 16% cost share commitment and let others take over. I'm good with an exit plan that isn't immediate as long as we define one.

Maybe in the process they should swap Germany for Ukraine since Germany has tied it's existence to Russia.
aezmvp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedNeckGamer88 said:

Are you really suggesting that if Russia took the Ukraine that the US will lose its economic station in the world? Or are you saying that if NATO was ended and Russia took over a bunch of back water eastern European countries that this would ruin the US and this would somehow prevent us from trading with western Europe? I get that you want the US to be top dog and maintain global hegemony. I guess that is good. But I really don't see that much value in it. Then again, I might just be a dumb millennial. I mean I did waste some time in Iraq and it is clear to me that the US gained nothing after 10 years of trying to spread women's rights, gay acceptance and democracy in the Middle East. I would love for someone to point out what we gained and how it was worth the men lost and the trillions spent. I feel the same way about the Ukraine and Eastern Europe. More people will die if we intervene then if we don't. Like I said, maybe I have a biased view point that leans towards putting Americans first.
Woah there cowboy.

You basically said "We should pull out of NATO." And you think that doesn't have immediate consequences? Without the US NATO is basically nothing. We both know that. The only credible forces in NATO are the British and while many of the others have credible auxiliary groups and units the striking power isn't there. Likely yes, the Russians are able to pull apart the alliance and roll over at least the Baltics. There is no way the Balkan states would look at that and think Germany is going to save them. The Poles basically would say F all of you we're going nuclear. As they should.

Dropping NATO basically tells all of Europe that the US is out of the game. Do you really think they will continue to orient themselves to the US when other credible alternatives are out there?

You also have to look at trust in America as a whole. Precipitously dropping NATO would also align Europe to adopting the Euro as the reserve currency and moving out of the dollar. I think the investment community worldwide would take a deep breath... and do so too. An America that quickly drops a what 70 year old treaty group and it's obligations is neither stable nor to be trusted.

Additionally this signals to the Middle East we're out of power projection. The Saudis also will go nuclear and further orient themselves towards China than they already have. They will figure they need to be more valuable to China than Iran, again they would be right.

It has implications through all of the areas where the RBI is up and running and all adjacent economies.

China would use this as a very persuasive stick to force people to choose exactly as the Soviets did during the Cold War. Except now our economy is incredibly heavily dependent on imported materials from elsewhere, which could and would be choked off or made very expensive drawing more wealth out of the US. It would be a huge strategic loss all over Africa and western Asia.

Then let's look at East Asia. South Korea and Japan will ask themselves how long before the US abandons them. Again not without reason. The Philippines, which has been more antagonistic towards the US under Duterte, would likely seek an accommodation with China along with other parts of SE Asia outside of maybe Vietnam and we would lose additional markets which China is already trying to push us out of and prevent from being replacement suppliers to our economy.

I would also expect similar results all through South America. Rejecting NATO isn't just saying the Europeans can handle it. It is a total reorganization of our force posture and affects every portion of our overseas infrastructure by signaling we aren't serious partners.

It wouldn't happen over night but in two decades we would be tremendously more isolated and vulnerable.

I 100% see where you're coming from with Iraq. We did not gain much and our cultural "exchange" program was both wasteful and counter-productive. Doubly so in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we should have gone in, leveled anything remotely connected to the Taliban, rooted out AQ burned every single one of those people alive and left the ashes for ISI and the Iranians to fight over.

Iraq could have been successful but we have neither the will nor the tolerance for bloodshed necessary to have done so.

But our economic structure is built around an international import system that requires extracting goods and materials overseas to feed our economy here. Ceding that ground to as pernicious a regime as the Chinese, and make no mistake long term that is what you would do by just dropping NATO like that, and upending the world wide security structure leaving a massive vacuum that would be filled with reasonably a half dozen new nuclear nations seems like a really bad trade.

Again we do NOT have to send troops to the Ukraine. Supporting them with intelligence, small arms, light artillery, manpad, anti-tank weaponry, mines, etc. would go a very long way.

I'm not for us committing F-22's and 35's and drone strikes or any of that, Not for sending a carrier group into the Black Sea or committing the 82nd to the defense of Kyiv. But failing to do anything, let alone just dropping NATO, is a bad call.
H2Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

FireAg said:

In the immediate future...not much of what happens in Ukraine means much to us...

However, the issue becomes "what's next after Ukraine"? Does Putin stop there?

Hitler slowly took over Europe piece by piece and we turned a blind eye to it until we couldn't ignore it any longer...

The concern is the long game, not the short game...

That's not historically correct.

He negotiated to take the Sudetenland. Then annexed the rest of Czechoslavokia 9 months later.

when he invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 the French and British declared war on 3 September.

only after that did he start to take over Europe (Norway winter 39, the low countries and France in May 1940, Balkans in spring 41, Soviet Union in summer 41)
You still haven't got to the part where the US got involved. Don't understand where he was incorrect yet
ProgN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FireAg said:

In the immediate future...not much of what happens in Ukraine means much to us...

However, the issue becomes "what's next after Ukraine"? Does Putin stop there?

Hitler slowly took over Europe piece by piece and we turned a blind eye to it until we couldn't ignore it any longer...

The concern is the long game, not the short game...
China takes Taiwan will be "what's next".
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


First Page Last Page
Page 31 of 296
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.