What are the opinions here. As we watch, read and listen to all the news and reports and rumors on Russia, Ukraine, NATO's military response and readiness, extraordinary and historic weapon and aid commitments, economic sanctions on Russia...where is it all going?
I get encouraged when I hear of some Russian troops willingly surrendering and higher than expected Russian casualties. Russian equipment breaking down and running out of fuel. But then am heart broken with every day, every hour of more reports of Ukrainian civilian buildings and injuries and deaths as Russians continue to indiscriminately fire rockets and shoot into populated areas - buildings and cars.
Why haven't the Russian's cut the power, cell and internet communications? Russia intends to inflict massive civilian casualties and demoralize them, cutting electric and cell phone videos from getting out would seem to fit the bill of what they are trying to do.
How will Russia view all the efforts to arm the Ukrainians from countries to the west - these weapons are meant to kill Russian soldiers, Putin may view this as western intervention. Would he strike targets in Poland say if they see arms being exchanged at the border?
As the Ukrainians fight back, if Russia bogs down, will Putin act more recklessly and dangerously potentially expanding the fight?
Honestly, I am surprised by what I see as shortcomings in the Russian military. But what they appear to lack in planning, intelligence, efficiency and tactical execution, they make up for unfortunately with sloppy widespread attacks on civilian targets and the end result vs a country like Ukraine nets the same goal. It's a very small sample, but US and NATO allies would crush Russian forces in a ground and air war if it were to ever come to that, but then there's the nuclear aspect which makes nothing certain. Russian military to me looks very dated, inexperienced and lacking precision and intelligence advantages. Those deficiencies aren't enough to prevent them from defeating a country like Ukraine, it's only the nuclear weaponry that makes them at all scary to western allies.
I don't know what Putin's next move can be. The cost of taking Ukraine will be so high, will that be worth it or does he have to push the envelope and take the fight, however it manifests itself, to those who supported the Ukrainians?
Huge catastrophic mistake - I can't see how it is ever going to end well for Putin. I'm just afraid when he realizes it really wasn't worth it and what it has actually cost him and his country that he'll be compelled to do something else against the west seeking vengeance towards others to pay for what he and his country have been reduced to.
I have no idea. Ukraine is fighting back, it's inspiring the way the citizens are taking up arms. But it's heartbreaking. I'm not sure what Putin's end-game is either. He's stayed in power in a corrupt fashion so he can...take back the USSR? Win or lose, he can't undo this aggression, like Saddam back in 1991. The World is on watch.
Let's not forget that Paul Manafort and Rudy Giuliani both spent time in Ukraine trying to undermine this government for Russian oligarchs.
I just heard part of the Russian Federation's representative at the UN. There is definitely a very different view on events and reasons there. Videos of attacks on civilian buildings are "fake" he says.
I actually have very limited knowledge of the recent history with Ukrainian revolutions and how those have impacted Putin's view on it all which has prompted his invasion. Obviously they feel their actions are justified.
Before it all, I thought Ukraine would be the end game, but now I think more that Putin can't or won't be content and will be very angry at the west. Certainly a new cold war is upon us, and hopefully not a hot war.
The United Nations has voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of its forces, in a global expression of outrage that highlighted Russia’s increasing isolation.
In an emergency session of the UN’s general assembly, 141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against.
The resolution, which was co-sponsored by 94 countries, said the UN “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine”. It demanded that “the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine” and “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces”.
The resolution is not legally binding, but is an expression of the views of the UN membership, aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow and its ally, Belarus.
On Friday, Russia was the sole vote against a similar resolution in the security council, but because Russia is one of the five powers with a veto, the resolution was not upheld, so Ukraine’s allies referred the matter to the general assembly.
It is first time in 40 years, the security council has referred a crisis to the assembly and only the 11th time an emergency session of the UN general assembly has been called since 1950.
It was summoned under a “uniting for peace” resolution, in which global threats are referred to the body “if the security council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility to act as required to maintain international peace and security”.
The "view" I referred to is the Russian opinion of western influence in the 2014 revolution which saw overthrow of the Russian selected leader. I'm not a good source of info, just piecing it together. There's always motives or 'views' that influence peoples and groups be they right or wrong.
Blinken on UN vote to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine: "For the small number that voted against -- Belarus, the DPRK, Syria, as well as of course, Russia -- as Groucho Marx once sorta said, this is not very much a club that I'd want to be a part of."
A top Russian military figure has been killed in the war in Ukraine according to local news outlets citing a social media post by his colleague.
Ukrainian news outlets were reporting that Andrei Sukhovetsky, deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army of the Central Military District, had been killed on Wednesday.
Moscow said that 498 Russian soldiers had died and another 1,597 had been wounded since the beginning of the war, according to state-run RIA Novosti. Kyiv has claimed that the Russian death toll is at least ten times higher.
Moscow also said that more than 2,870 Ukrainian soldiers and "nationalists" had been killed and about 3,700 wounded, although the numbers have not been independently verified.
Ukrainian soldiers on Zminny Island (Snake Island) are not dead, but were captured and are alive. The "Go F yourself Russian warship" guys.
A lot of scuttle and conspiracy on this...I feel a little like Gina at the moment. There is youtube video of the soldiers talking from captivity - soldiers likely told what to say for the camera, Russian propaganda. Last week Zelensky confirmed their death, and there weren't just 13, there were more like 80 there. Maybe Zelensky wanted some propaganda of his own.
I can't help wonder what it'd be like if Trump won in 2020. Putin feared Trump and would never have done this. There'd be no war in Ukraine. Gas prices would be low. Economy would be stronger than ever. But, because of some mean tweets, we have this.
^ That is bait. Hopefully at some point we can talk about other things than Trump.
Why weren't stronger actions and sanctions taken before the invasion? It's not Biden's fault as some are implying. Germany, France, other countries did not believe that Russia would invade. They thought their economic and better political ties with Moscow were enough to keep the peace. They were wrong. Only after the invasion did all of Europe realize the seriousness of the situation and the devil they had been dealing with. All while US intelligence was warning this would happen for months, back to November. Europe didn't believe it and therefore no matter how strongly the US would have appealed for sanctions, Europe was not ready to back it.
They could still sanction the oil exports. Pretty much everyone is calling for it. I think there is more to the story why they aren't doing that. Putin is callings the already enacted sanctions "akin to a declaration of war". Sanctioning the oil and gas would be a death blow and how Putin might respond is unknown. As it is know Russian oil tankers are searching for buyers, offering 20-30% discounts without buyers. China can only commit to so much.
I can't help wonder what it'd be like if Trump won in 2020. Putin feared Trump and would never have done this. There'd be no war in Ukraine. Gas prices would be low. Economy would be stronger than ever. But, because of some mean tweets, we have this.
I think you have it backwards mate. More like Trump fears Putin and what dirt he has on him. Not to mention all the Russian funding for his failed business deals.
Trump already called Putin a genius so how would he have prevented the invasion exactly considering he was Putin's bitch for 4 years.
This post was modified 4 years ago 2 times by Bill_Graham
One thing I can't understand is why the Ukrainians are not targeting the Russian vehicle convoy that has been staged north of Kiev for days and days. They are sitting ducks. Ukrainian air force or unmanned drones would be capable of inflicting damage and taking them out. Unless it is calculated restraint as to not be offensive in fighting? Russians are showing zero restraint and are ruthless. Take out the convoy! I'm sure there are a few plausible explanations, but they defy me.
@nebish good question. Maybe the Russians have antiaircraft missiles setup along the convoy or their airforce is not as functional as has been reported?
US and Poland discussing Poland sending Ukraine MIGs.
Right, the Russians likely are very alert to the vulnerability that convoy has and as such have measures in place to protect it. I would think it is worth the risk to put some ordnance on that target because at any moment those vehicles and troops could be moving to encircling and invade Kiev. An attack on it would be highly visibile and widely reported and is high reward to try and take out or damage so many vehicles and troops, but also high risk and maybe the Ukrainians are content to not assume that risk and keep watch over the movements of the convoy - or maybe they are afraid of failure being that again, it would be very public if it were to work or not. They have weapon carrying drones that can be used if they wish rather than not risk planes or lives.
As with everything in life now, so hard to know what and who to believe. Certainly we are seeing propaganda out of Ukraine meant to inspire and motivate it's fighters and civilians. But it's not all true...like the exaggerated story of "the Ghost of Kiev".
Ukrainian news reports they have shot down 44 Russian planes and 44 helicopters as of March 5th. Some place called "Ukinform" cited those numbers. The coincidence of those figures being the same...did they shoot down a total of 44, or a total of 88? They definitely have shot down Russian planes and helicopters, but the exact number is going to remain unclear since neither side can really be trusted with their reports. And then of course Ukraine has also shot down one of it's own planes that they thought were Russian...so you know, this isn't a top shelf air force.
More planes? They have to be Migs obviously because it's all they know how to fly, but there's already been false reports of countries sending planes to Ukraine, so again, who knows. Definitely one of the more challenging aspects of getting Ukraine what they need to fight back.
I think we are continuing to see short comings in the Russian military as I said before. They can blindly throw bombs and fire missiles letting them hit whatever they hit, but it's not a very sophisticated or precise attack and I wonder if it is because they want it that way (they might) or is it because they are not capable of anything else (which may also be true).
Article examining the absence of Russian superiority in the skies over Ukraine:
Arming Ukraine: 17,000 Anti-Tank Weapons in 6 Days and a Clandestine Cybercorps
The United States has walked to the edge of direct conflict with Russia in an operation that is reminiscent of the Berlin airlift of 1948-49, but far more complex.
French military equipment is unloaded from a freight airplane at Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania last Thursday.Credit...Daniel Mihailescu/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
March 6, 2022Updated 8:48 p.m. ET
On a snowy tarmac at Amari Air Base in northern Estonia on Sunday morning, pallets of rifles, ammunition and other weapons were being loaded onto one of the largest cargo planes in the world, an Antonov AN-124, belonging to the Ukrainian air force. It is an artifact of the Cold War, built and purchased when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.
Now it is being turned back against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, part of a vast airlift that American and European officials describe as a desperate race against time, to get tons of arms into the hands of Ukrainian forces while their supply routes are still open. Scenes like this, reminiscent of the Berlin airlift — the famed race by the Western allies to keep West Berlin supplied with essentials in 1948 and 1949 as the Soviet Union sought to choke it off — are playing out across Europe.
In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities. So far, Russian forces have been so preoccupied in other parts of the country that they have not targeted the arms supply lines, but few think that can last.
But those are only the most visible contributions. Hidden away on bases around Eastern Europe, forces from United States Cyber Command known as “cybermission teams” are in place to interfere with Russia’s digital attacks and communications — but measuring their success rate is difficult, officials say.
In Washington and Germany, intelligence officials race to merge satellite photographs with electronic intercepts of Russian military units, strip them of hints of how they were gathered, and beam them to Ukrainian military units within an hour or two. As he tries to stay out of the hands of Russian forces in Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine travels with encrypted communications equipment, provided by the Americans, that can put him into a secure call with President Biden. Mr. Zelensky used it Saturday night for a 35-minute call with his American counterpart on what more the U.S. can do in its effort to keep Ukraine alive without entering into direct combat on the ground, in the air or in cyberspace with Russian forces.
Mr. Zelensky welcomed the help so far, but repeated the criticism that he has made in public — that the aid was wildly insufficient to the task ahead. He asked for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, a shutdown of all Russian energy exports and a fresh supply of fighter jets.
It is a delicate balance. On Saturday, while Mr. Biden was in Wilmington, Del., his National Security Council staff spent much of the day trying to find a way for Poland to transfer to Ukraine a fleet of well-used, Soviet-made MIG-29 fighter jets that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly. But the deal is contingent on giving Poland, in return, far more capable, American-made F-16s, an operation made more complicated by the fact that many of those fighters are promised to Taiwan — where the United States has greater strategic interests.
Polish leaders have said there is no deal, and are clearly concerned about how they would provide the fighters to Ukraine and whether doing so would make them a new target of the Russians. The United States says it is open to the idea of the plane swap.
“I can’t speak to a timeline, but I can just tell you that we’re looking at it very, very actively,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said on Sunday, during a trip that has taken him to Moldova, another non-NATO country that American officials fear may be next on Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s hit list of nations to bring back into Moscow’s sphere of influence.
And in downtown Washington, lobbying groups and law firms that once charged the Ukrainian government handsomely for their services are now working for free, helping Mr. Zelensky’s embattled government plead for more sanctions on Russia.
The Ukrainians are also asking for more money for weapons, though they reject the idea that Washington is manipulating Mr. Zelensky’s image to present him as Churchill in a T-shirt, rallying his country to war. Covington & Burling, a major law firm, filed a motion pro bono on behalf of Ukraine in the International Court of Justice.
It is, in many ways, a more complex effort than the Berlin airlift three-quarters of a century ago. West Berlin was a small territory with direct air access. Ukraine is a sprawling country of 44 million from which Mr. Biden has pulled all American forces in an effort to avoid becoming a “co-combatant” in the war, a legal term that governs how far the United States can go in helping Ukraine without being considered in direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia.
But as the weapons flow in and if efforts to interfere in Russian communications and computer networks escalate, some U.S. national security officials say they have a foreboding that such conflict is increasingly likely. The American legal definitions of what constitutes entering the war are not Mr. Putin’s definitions, one senior American national security official warned over the weekend, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the American overt and covert efforts to aid Ukraine.
Mr. Putin warned on Saturday that any nation that attempted to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be “participating in the armed conflict.” On Sunday the Russian ministry of defense issued a statement warning NATO countries like Romania against allowing their bases to be used as a safe haven for the remaining planes in the Ukrainian air force. If they do so, it said, any “subsequent use against the Russian armed forces can be regarded as the involvement of these states in an armed conflict.”
Two decades ago this month, as American forces began to flow into Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus famously asked, “Tell me how this ends.” In the case of Ukraine, a senior American official said, the question resonating around the White House is more like: “Tell me how we don’t get sucked in to a superpower conflict.”
A Flow of Arms Becomes a Torrent
To understand the warp-speed nature of the arms transfers underway now, consider this: A $60 million arms package to Ukraine that the U.S. announced last August was not completed until November, the Pentagon said.
But when the president approved $350 million in military aid on Feb. 26 — nearly six times larger — 70 percent of it was delivered in five days. The speed was considered essential, officials said, because the equipment — including anti-tank weapons — had to make it through western Ukraine before Russian air and ground forces started attacking the shipments. As Russia takes more territory inside the country, it is expected to become more and more difficult to distribute weapons to Ukrainian troops.
Within 48 hours of Mr. Biden approving the transfer of weapons from U.S. military stockpiles on Feb. 26, the first shipments, largely from Germany, were arriving at airfields near Ukraine’s border, officials said.
The military was able to push those shipments forward quickly by tapping into pre-positioned military stockpiles ready to roll onto Air Force C-17 transport planes and other cargo aircraft, and flying them to about half a dozen staging bases in neighboring countries, chiefly in Poland and Romania.
Still, the resupply effort faces stiff logistical and operational challenges.
“The window for doing easy stuff to help the Ukrainians has closed,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Repass, a former commander of U.S. Special Operations forces in Europe.
U.S. officials say Ukrainian leaders have told them that American and other allied weaponry is making a difference on the battlefield. Ukrainian soldiers armed with shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missiles have several times in the past week attacked a mileslong convoy of Russian armor and supply trucks, helping stall the Russian ground advance as it bears down on Kyiv, Pentagon officials said. Some of the vehicles are being abandoned, officials said, because Russian troops fear sitting in the convoy when fuel-supply tanks are being targeted by the Ukrainians, setting off fireballs.
Image
A Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drone.Credit...Birol Bebek/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The convoy has also come under attack several times at different places along the column from another weapon supplied by a NATO member state. Armed Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, which the Ukrainian military used for the first time in combat against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine last October, are now hunting Russian tanks and other vehicles, U.S. officials said.
“All of us have been tremendously impressed by how effectively the Ukrainian armed forces have been using the equipment that we’ve provided them,” Laura Cooper, the Pentagon’s top Russia policy official, said. “Kremlin watchers have also been surprised by this, and how they have slowed the Russian advance and performed extremely well on the battlefield.”
Even the elements have sided with the Ukrainian military in the war’s early days. Bad weather in northern Ukraine has grounded some Russian attack planes and helicopters, a senior Pentagon official said. Many Russian vehicles that have driven off the main roads to avoid the stalled convoy have gotten stuck in the mud, making them more vulnerable to attack, officials said.
But the U.S. intelligence also has its limits. Mr. Biden’s ground rules forbid flying surveillance aircraft over Ukraine, so they have to peer in over the border, much as surveillance is often conducted over North Korea. There is reliance on new, small satellites — providing images similar to those that commercial firms like Maxar and Planet Labs are providing.
A War in Cyberspace That Has Barely Begun
One of the odd features of the conflict so far is that it runs the gamut of old and modern warfare. The trenches dug by Ukrainian soldiers in the south and east look like scenes from 1914. The Russian tanks rolling through the cities evoke Budapest in 1956. But the battle of the present day that most strategists expected to mark the opening days of the war — over computer networks and the power grids and communications systems they control — has barely begun.
American officials say that is partly because of extensive work done to harden Ukraine’s networks after Russian attacks on its electric grid in 2015 and 2016. But experts say that cannot explain it all. Perhaps the Russians did not try very hard at the outset, or are holding their assets in reserve. Perhaps an American-led counteroffensive — part of what Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the head of Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, calls a doctrine of “persistent engagement” in global networks — explains at least some of the absence.
Government officials are understandably tight-lipped, saying the cyberoperations underway, which have been moved in recent days from an operations center in Kyiv to one outside the country, are some of the most classified elements of the conflict. But it is clear that the cybermission teams have tracked some familiar targets, including the activities of the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence operations, to try to neutralize their activity. Microsoft has helped, turning out patches in hours to kill off malware it detects in unclassified systems.
All of this is new territory when it comes to the question of whether the United States is a “co-combatant.” By the American interpretation of the laws of cyberconflict, the United States can temporarily interrupt Russian capability without conducting an act of war; permanent disablement is more problematic. But as experts acknowledge, when a Russian system goes down, the Russian units don’t know whether it is temporary or permanent, or even whether the United States is responsible.
Similarly, sharing intelligence is perilous. American officials are convinced that Ukraine’s military and intelligence agencies are populated with Russian spies, so they are being careful not to distribute raw intelligence that would reveal sources. And they say they are not passing on specific intelligence that would tell Ukrainian forces how to go after specific targets. The concern is that doing so would give Russia an excuse to say it is fighting the United States or NATO, not Ukraine.
The Lobbyists Fight, Too
Ukraine has been receiving lobbying, public relations and legal assistance free of charge — and it is paying off. Mr. Zelensky held a Zoom call with members of Congress on Saturday, pushing for tougher sanctions on Russia and urging specific types of arms and other support.
An ad hoc team includes Andrew Mac, an American lawyer who has been volunteering as a lobbyist and nonstaff adviser to Mr. Zelensky since late 2019, and Daniel Vajdich, a lobbyist who had been paid by the Ukrainian energy industry and a civil society nonprofit group, but is now working for free. But American lobbyists are a sensitive topic in Ukraine, after Paul Manafort, later President Trump’s campaign chairman, worked for a pro-Russian president who was ousted in 2014, and after Mr. Trump tried to make military aid to Kyiv dependent on its willingness to help find dirt on then-candidate Biden and his son, Hunter.
Mr. Vajdich said he hoped his clients would redirect any funds they would have paid his firm to military defenses and humanitarian aid for Ukrainians forced from their homes by the fighting, drawing a comparison to early Nazi military aggression.
“Knowing what we know today, if we were living and operating in 1937 to ’39, would we have asked the Czechoslovaks for compensation to lobby against Neville Chamberlain and his policies?” he asked, referring to the British prime minister who ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in the Munich Agreement of 1938.
“No,” he said, “certainly not.”
David E. Sanger reported from Wilmington, Del., and Eric Schmitt, Julian E. Barnes and Kenneth P. Vogel from Washington. Helene Cooper reported from Amari Air Base, Estonia.
Sadly, Putin will use whatever means necessary to subjugate Ukraine. Death and destruction regardless of degree are just part of his equation. The only way I see the war stopping is having him removed from power by other Russians. May that happen sooner than later.
Russia will stop 'in a moment' if Ukraine meets terms - Kremlin
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.
Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
It was the most explicit Russian statement so far of the terms it wants to impose on Ukraine to halt what it calls its "special military operation", now in its 12th day.
Peskov told Reuters in a telephone interview that Ukraine was aware of the conditions. "And they were told that all this can be stopped in a moment."
There was no immediate reaction from the Ukrainian side.
Russia has attacked Ukraine from the north, east and south, pounding cities including Kyiv, Kharkiv and the port of Mariupol. The invasion launched on Feb. 24, has caused the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two, provoked outrage across the world, and led to heavy sanctions on Moscow.
But the Kremlin spokesman insisted Russia was not seeking to make any further territorial claims on Ukraine and said it was "not true" that it was demanding Kyiv be handed over.
"We really are finishing the demilitarisation of Ukraine. We will finish it. But the main thing is that Ukraine ceases its military action. They should stop their military action and then no one will shoot," he said.
On the issue of neutrality, Peskov said: "They should make amendments to the constitution according to which Ukraine would reject any aims to enter any bloc."
He added: "We have also spoken about how they should recognise that Crimea is Russian territory and that they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states. And that’s it. It will stop in a moment."
NEW TALKS
The outlining of Russia's demands came as delegations from Russia and Ukraine prepared to meet on Monday for a third round of talks aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine.
It began soon after Putin recognised two breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian government forces since 2014, as independent - an action denounced as illegal by the West.
"This is not us seizing Lugansk and Donetsk from Ukraine. Donetsk and Lugansk don’t want to be part of Ukraine. But it doesn’t mean they should be destroyed as a result," Peskov said.
"For the rest. Ukraine is an independent state that will live as it wants, but under conditions of neutrality."
He said all the demands have been formulated and handed over during the first two rounds of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, which took place last week.
"We hope that all this will go OK and they will react in a suitable way," Peskov said.
Russia had been forced into taking decisive actions to force the demilitarisation of Ukraine, he said, rather than just recognising the independence of the breakaway regions.
This was in order to protect the 3 million Russian-speaking population in these republics, who he said were being threatened by 100,000 Ukrainian troops.
"We couldn’t just recognise them. What were we going to do with the 100,000 army that was standing at the border of Donetsk and Lugansk that could attack at any moment. They were being brought U.S. and British weapons all the time," he said.
In the run-up to the Russian invasion, Ukraine repeatedly and emphatically denied Moscow's assertions that it was about to mount an offensive to take back the separatist regions by force.
Peskov said the situation in Ukraine had posed a much greater threat to Russia’s security than it had in 2014, when Russia had also amassed 150,000 troops at its border with Ukraine, prompting fears of a Russian invasion, but had limited its action to the annexation of Crimea.
"Since then the situation has worsened for us. In 2014, they began supplying weapons to Ukraine and preparing the army for NATO, bringing it in line with NATO standards," he said.
"In the end what tipped the balance was the lives of these 3 million people in Donbass. We understood they would be attacked."
Peskov said Russia had also had to act in the face of the threat it perceived from NATO, saying it was "only a matter of time" before the alliance placed missiles in Ukraine as it had in Poland and Romania.
"We just understood we could not put up with this any more. We had to act," he said.
A lot of pro-Russian justification, or atleast, explanation there for whatever that is worth?
So if you want to the war to stop, that's what they want. What would you do?
I think I'd reject that if I were Ukrainian leadership. First, you can't trust the Russians. But second, that would all but make them an extension of Russia by requiring to sever their ties to the west. Ukrainians want to be free - they want nothing to do with Russia now more than ever. Is the choice life or ceding independence to the Russians? What is life worth without freedom? At this point they have to keep fighting. Parts of the country are in ruins, thousands have died. Millions have fled. Stop now and give the Russians what they want, for what? I think Putin is looking for an offramp at this point more than Zelensky is. I don't expect Ukraine agrees to these conditions.
Two points: that NYT article was mostly about the US discouraging vets from going for many strategic & individual reasons. There isn't any official screening to weed out those w/no useful skills as well extremists and those w/PTSD, the status of volunteer foreign vets is unclear but they'd essentially be mercenaries who at best could face criminal charges in Russia, and their actions could unintentionally pull the US directly into the war. Although vets' urge to fight is understandable, it is being discouraged by the US. As of today, no US vets are confirmed to be fighting in Ukraine & the US military effort to encourage them to seek volunteer opportunities w/NGOs or other organizations is overwhelmed. That same article pointed to examples of US volunteer armies that have been romanticized in hindsight but were failures - from Americans eager to fight or volunteer in the French Revolution & Spanish Civil War that resulted in massive casualties w/o military success.
Second, there have been several articles of photo misinformation on SM posted by Americans. Pictures of explosions, battles, bombed convoys have been proven to be genuine but from somewhere other than Ukraine from 10 year old pictures of weapons test in the US to undated photos of refugees. I don't believe any photos unless they have a news logo, but that's me. Frankly, I don't think the above photo is particularly meaningful or useful. What's the point? It could be any bunch of guys from anywhere to me.
I know you're diligently following the action & always trying to get things right.
ETA: My hope is that sanctions will have a strong impact at least in getting Russian citizens to realize they're being fed lies. If banning oil helps, great. I don't care if gas is $10/gallon if it's more effective than disorganized civilians volunteering to fight.
Well that hadn't happened for a while. Taking the time to post a reply only to find out that you thought you were logged in, but weren't logged in and now you can't recover what you just typed.
It definitely was not encouraged, obviously rather problematic for a variety of reasons and numbers could not be verified. My impression from the story is the appeal that some veterans had in this type of conflict...rather than the US trying to prop up governments with populations that either didn't fully believe in freedom or were not ready to fight for it, here we have Ukraine a free country, with willingness and courage to fight for their country against communist invaders trying to take it away. It's everything the good fight should be about and quite a contrast from the Afghan and Iraq wars. The feeling of actually believing a difference can be made in a clear good vs evil war that everyone is willing to step up for in country.
That photo was from I believe Ukraine State of Emergency social media. We've seen their videos and photos tagged by major news affiliates. I tend to think that the photo is genuine, foreign volunteer fighters willing to lend their skills and knowledge while risking their lives to defend Ukraine. Will it matter in the end? They would need hundreds not dozens. But out of all the things that I could post here, all the things we already know and have been widely reported, I thought that was a unique angle to post in the thread. I mean...the Russians are trying to get Syrian fighters to help them, what's that say about the Russian military? The Russian military continues really to be in trouble, not a very efficient or professional looking bunch they are.
The point is just to shed light on one angle of the overall story. Lots of layers and things happening or not happening, whatever extent foreign volunteers are entering Ukraine and what impact they will have, who can tell. But seems interesting to me none the less.
As for the other aspect on Russia oil imports being banned by the US, the President has announced this and 100% fully support such a move. The Putin Genius thread drifted in a way that we touched doing so there.
Can the world ban Russian oil...well, the entire world does not want to ban Russian oil (China), but their output as a percentage of the global supply is a much tougher step. The US will be inconvenienced by no Russian crude or refined products, some countries of the world would be massively disrupted at the current moment.
So I am very happy President Biden taking this step and I think there is broad support for it.
I'll also take this opportunity to say that generally I am confident with President Biden in the White House during these times.
I think the biggest criticism is of the failure on deterrence. And to those critics I wonder, what is the magic bullet that would've prevented invasion? There was not the necessary coalition on tough sanctions in the months or even weeks leading up to the invasion, so pretending imposing tougher sanctions before the fact would not have occurred. What should the US or NATO positioned more resources, where, along the borders or even in Ukraine? I don't see this as any kind of deterrence and in fact moving troops or more weapons visibly into Ukraine could've had the reverse effect. I suppose that if the US had not taken troop deployment off the table and if we had not messaged we would not engage militarily with Russia in defense of Ukraine directly maybe, maybe that would have made Putin reconsider. But we would have to be fully prepared if he was still determined to invade and all that it would mean. In hindsight, I think US and NATO forces would destroy the Russian military in Ukraine, but it would not end there, no Putin would not turn away with his tail between his legs, no he would certainly have upped the ante and then what? Kind of the point of this thread...would that be the end or just the beginning. Naturally I think it would be just the beginning of something nobody wants, wider conflict with more lives at risk and ultimately the unpredictability of provoking some nuclear response.
I don't really know what the Biden administration could've or should've done differently. US intelligence put up all the flags and kept our allies informed for months. The US can not and should not have to be the primary deterrence for these types of things and if the coalition isn't ready, then they just aren't ready and there is not the proper deterrence.
And what now? Here too I think Biden is walking the right line.
As much as it pains and sickens me to see the death of innocent civilians and the sheer destruction of cities and homes and schools and all of that - at what point, is there a point that I or we would want to risk the lives of our citizens and military members by engaging them directly to defend Ukraine? It's hard. It's easy to say, and I have always said it, that I don't want US lives put at risk to defend countries or agendas that are not in our vital interest. Standing up for free nations in the face of oppressive and savage attacks could, well, be in our vital interest and I'm sure there are some people with that view. If we weren't such a war-weary nation having buried too many of our own and countless others wounded and scared for life, maybe it would be a different situation. I want Russia to stop, I want Russia to lose - but do I want our military to risk it all in doing that? I still don't think so.
And on energy - opponents of the President, and of Democrats, must understand that renewable and cleaner energy is a bedrock principle of the party. While anyone can be critical of it and not believe in it or support it, the fact that the President and most of the people in the party are not going to all of a sudden throw long term goals away for short term band aids.
It's not honest, it lacks understanding of policy and principle - it's just low hanging fruit to bang on the other party.
I do not know why reasonable people can't say "I believe we must transition into a cleaner energy producer and consumer" and other people can't say "I want energy independence" - because those two ideals are 100% compatible and complimentary of each other. I want as much conventional fossil fuel energy production in our country as possible. And I want as much renewable and green energy production in our country as possible. I don't want the US to be reliant on Chinese solar panels any more than I want our country to be reliant on oil from Saudi Arabia.
So while I wish the President or Democrats might be less hostile towards fossil fuel production in our country, the fact is that oil and natural gas production here is surging as it did under Obama. US oil and gas production can and does succeed under Democrat administrations even if their policy is not friendly towards it. Could the US or North American countries produce more or process more under a different regulatory structure, sure. But we are already at or near record production now, and that is pretty good. Republicans can not and should not expect Democrats to abandon their principles just as Democrats should not expect Republicans to do so either.
Frankly, we need longer term agendas and policies in this country. Not ones for today or tomorrow, but ones that will make a difference 10, 20, 50 years from now.
I don't care about carbon neutral. Zero. But I care about energy independence and our country can not be self reliant exclusively on our own fossil fuel energy. We just can't. We still import very large amounts of crude oil even though we are at the record highs of domestic production. So then, I believe the right thing to do is cut counties out of our supply chain. Russia, done. Hopefully we don't look towards Venezuela or Iran to supply the US. I do not want US dollars going to buy that oil either. We whittle down who we import oil from, we expand the development and deployment of truly domestic green energy production and we are on the path to energy independence. It should've been done long long ago. I don't want us to import any products from unfriendly nations that do not share our common ideals and goals.
Biden could take some steps more towards the US fossil fuel industry and I might be happier, but as it is, I'm not upset at all. I accept different and can appreciate different points of views and reasons. I understand why. I just wish more Americans would. In the end, I think we will get where we want and need to go and hopefully it will not be with Russia or China or any of those nations with which economic entanglements work to our detriment.
Yes, I know you're trying to get a conversation going w/o much success. I think I can make the broad statement that Americans have a natural impulse to help "good" causes going back to the French Revolution & they haven't been deployed in such an obvious way since WWII. The other impulse is to help refugees & the best answer is send money to reputable NGOs. Frankly, I don't think anyone should complain about rising gas prices - consider it our contribution to support Ukraine & its refugees.
I see you guys. And it's fine, I don't always comment in threads I read. But I see who comes and goes and know the people that are still here have respectable opinions and are worthwhile to hear from. So just saying, anything on your mind is worth reading...I mean these days around here at least...it's just us now.
In a way it's a shame that the US isn't in the fight here. It hurts seeing it, it hurts knowing that these people are just expendable for lack of a better word. But at the same time there have to be lines for us and for them and we need to stick to our lines. I support everything the US is currently doing and that includes trying to organize the fighter jet transfer which right-wing some personalities seems to be making a big deal about...which I can't hardly believe because it sounds exactly like something they should support and would support. It's weird when the right-wing goes anti, I don't know if I want to say anti-war, I mean to some extent everyone should be anti-war. Just that you know, there is a strong vein of the right that also favors non-intervention and while I don't consider myself right-wing I do identify as the non-intervention type. But man, it's hard. It's hard right now knowing what is happening and knowing we could stop it. Complicated world we live in.
@nebish seems to be a under current that a lot of GOP has money ties with the Oligarchs...seems they not only hitched their wagon to *tRump but maybe Puti too...
