Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 224032 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
D1
« Reply #250 on: January 18, 2022, 11:21:58 AM »
January 18, 2022   
         
It's another busy week of diplomacy for Europe as America's top diplomat travels to Ukraine today, followed by a stop in Berlin on Thursday to speak with German, French, and British officials.

For the record, United States State Secretary Antony Blinken's travel this week is "part of the diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the tension caused by Russia's military build-up and continued aggression against Ukraine," State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a statement Tuesday morning.

Blinken also rang up his Russian counterpart Tuesday morning. In that call, the secretary "reiterated the unshakable U.S. commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and underscored that any discussion of European security must include NATO Allies and European partners, including Ukraine," Foggy Bottom announced in a separate statement Tuesday.

Germany's foreign minister traveled to Moscow today, where she met with the same man Blinken spoke to by phone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Reuters has a tiny bit more from that one, here.

And NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is dropping by Berlin today to meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht.

More than a half dozen U.S. lawmakers visited Ukraine's president and defense minister on Monday. And that bipartisan delegation included Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Brought to you by Collins Aerospace

From Outdated to Updated: What It Takes to Improve Air Combat Training

Warfighters need to train appropriately to ensure they're prepared to take on novel challenges, which have always included the latest aircraft, but now need to account for the technologies and surface to air threats near-peer adversaries are developing. The catch, however, is many training methods simply aren't keeping up.

Learn More!

One of the CODEL's messages to Ukraine: "The United States Congress will give President Biden the authority he needs to build a set of massive deterrent sanctions to dissuade Russia from further invading Ukraine," Sen. Murphy tweeted Monday.

"Ukraine is a vital U.S. partner who is standing resolute in the face of Vladimir Putin's shameful and illegal aggression," Wicker said in his own statement Monday, and emphasized, "It is imperative that the United States stay strong in the face of Russian aggression and stand by our friends who are fighting for freedom."

The British military is rushing "anti-armor" weapons to Ukraine, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the House of Commons on Monday. "Let me be clear: this support is for short-range, and clearly defensive weapons capabilities; they are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia," Wallace said. "They are to use in self-defence and the UK personnel providing the early-stage training will return to the United Kingdom after completing it."

The reason why: "As of today, tens of thousands of Russian troops are positioned close to the Ukrainian border," the secretary told lawmakers Monday. "Their deployment is not routine, and they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, rocket artillery, and short-range ballistic missiles."

And regarding Russia's big gripe (NATO is getting too close), "Countries choose NATO; NATO does not choose them," Wallace said. "If Russia has concerns about the enlargement, it should perhaps ask itself why, when people were free to choose, they chose NATO." Read over his full remarks, including several overtures to Moscow, here.

ICYMI: "Russia denies looking for pretext to invade Ukraine," the Associated Press reported Monday from Moscow.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
GPF: Ukraine update
« Reply #251 on: January 18, 2022, 11:33:58 AM »
second

Nations have begun deploying assets to support the government in Kyiv.
By: Geopolitical Futures

Support for Ukraine. Western states have begun sending support to Kyiv amid the ongoing speculation about a possible Russian invasion. British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said on Monday that the U.K. has started supplying Ukraine with anti-tank weapons – noting that they will be used only for self-defense. Wallace also said a small number of British troops would go to Ukraine to train forces on using the weapons. Meanwhile, Canada has reportedly deployed special operations forces to Ukraine. The troops will be there to support the Ukrainian government and deter a possible Russian incursion, as well as to help evacuate Canadian diplomats if a conflict erupts, according to Canadian media. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is also planning to visit Ukraine later this week as part of Washington’s deescalation efforts.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. senators to discuss the situation at the border. Zelensky thanked the United States for its assistance and called for a preventive package of sanctions against Russia to be drawn up. This comes as Russia has launched more exercises in its Western Military District involving more than 2,000 military personnel.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
"no option is off the table"
« Reply #252 on: January 18, 2022, 01:54:33 PM »
LOL
that means military action is out  :wink:

Psaki said Secretary of State Tony Blinken would meet with his Russian counterpart in Switzerland this week to urge Putin not to invade Ukraine and warn of “severe” consequences if they chose to do so.

“No option is off the table,” she said.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: "no option is off the table"
« Reply #253 on: January 18, 2022, 02:08:04 PM »
Get ready for Putin to run the table on them.


LOL
that means military action is out  :wink:

Psaki said Secretary of State Tony Blinken would meet with his Russian counterpart in Switzerland this week to urge Putin not to invade Ukraine and warn of “severe” consequences if they chose to do so.

“No option is off the table,” she said.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #255 on: January 18, 2022, 03:08:08 PM »
I thought we were all of the opinion that US troops would be profoundly unwise?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #256 on: January 18, 2022, 03:31:53 PM »
I thought we were all of the opinion that US troops would be profoundly unwise?

I am. But the sooper geniuses that brought us disaster in Afghanistan are ready for a whole other disaster with a nuclear armed near peer.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
GPF: What the failure of the talks means
« Reply #257 on: January 19, 2022, 02:35:10 PM »
January 19, 2022
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
What the Failure of the US-NATO-Russia Talks Means
Putin can’t enter the Ukraine crisis and leave with nothing.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

Negotiations last week between the United States and Russia say a lot without saying much at all. Talks first took place on Jan. 9 ahead of more official discussions in Geneva the next day. A few days later, Russia and NATO spoke in Brussels about Ukraine and, related, the non-expansion of NATO to the east.

There was never much hope for the negotiations, the top agenda for which was Russia’s proposals for security guarantees, especially vis-a-vis NATO. The three parties ended their talks agreeing only that disagreements remain. After the meetings, the media naturally began to talk about escalation and preparations for an invasion of Ukraine. But this “escalation” looks like a tactic rather than a true position, an attempt by Russia to pressure its adversaries to participate in additional meetings and thus ensure the safety of its precious buffer zones.

Buffer Between Russia and NATO
(click to enlarge)

Showtime

Even during the negotiations, Russia began to up its psychological pressure on the U.S. and NATO. For example, it initiated military exercises in the western regions of Voronezh, Belgorod, Bryansk and Smolensk – all of them close to the Ukrainian border. (Roughly 3,000 troops participated.) The purpose of the drills was clear: to demonstrate its capabilities and a desire to protect its interests. Psychological operations such as these are particularly important to Moscow, which believes it needs to stand its ground without resorting to war or incurring additional sanctions.

Conflict in Eastern Ukraine
(click to enlarge)

The purpose of Moscow’s demands is also pretty clear. It wanted a guarantee from NATO and Washington that they would not use neighboring countries to prepare for or carry out an armed attack on Russia. It wanted Washington to halt the eastward expansion of NATO, refusing the admission of all former Soviet satellite states. And it wanted assurances that the U.S. would not create military bases in those states, and that NATO would cease military activities in Ukraine as well as other parts of Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Without these guarantees, Russia will inevitably feel vulnerable in its western borderlands. Indeed, one of its most important geopolitical imperatives is to maintain a buffer zone between its heartland and external threats from Europe.

Of course, the Kremlin never expected the U.S. to capitulate to its demands last week. But it had hoped that the West would at least soften some of its stances on these issues. And since the negotiations didn’t go anywhere, we can all expect Russia to act a little more aggressively, if only rhetorically, in the near term. After all, the borderlands remain unsecured: There is a frozen conflict in Donbass, the Caucasus region is constantly challenged by Turkey, and Central Asia is still unstable. In a recent interview with CNN, for example, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov made several statements that Russia’s relations with NATO are approaching a redline thanks to the alliance’s military support for Ukraine. He went on to say that NATO is a tool of confrontation, that Russia is seeing a gradual NATO invasion of Ukraine, and that proposed U.S. sanctions against Russian leaders could lead to the termination of bilateral relations. Moreover, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, a direct participant in negotiations, said in an interview with RTVI that he cannot rule out the possibility of deploying military assets to Cuba and Venezuela if negotiations with the West fail. Again, this may all be rhetorical, but it nonetheless puts the U.S. on the defensive – and publicly at that.

Aside from heightened rhetoric, Russia has openly stepped up military movements. Over the past week, several dozen videos on TikTok and Instagram have shown the transfer of military personnel and equipment from Siberia and the Far East to Russia’s western regions. Soon thereafter, the Tank Army of the Western Military District began exercises in five regions, in which more than 800 servicemen and more than 300 weapons were involved. Elsewhere, Russian troops began to arrive in southern and western Belarus for exercises. With these moves, Russia intends to send the message that its forces are ready.

Limits

Despite this performative maneuvering, and despite reports of possible strikes, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest neither Russia nor the United States is interested in a serious military confrontation.

First, if Russia wanted a confrontation, it would have done it quietly. Well-advertised military movements, particularly ones involving soldiers from the polar opposite end of the country, surrender any element of surprise Russia could have hoped to have. And though the numbers of troops and tanks in western Russia seem large, they are not nearly enough to wage a winnable war in the vast lands of Ukraine. (Notably, the repositioning of Russian materiel has been underway for nearly a year; it didn’t just start last week.)

Second, deploying weapons or troops to Cuba and Venezuela is no easy task. It would be difficult in the best of times, but these are not the best of times. Bilateral cooperation between them and Russia, for example, is far weaker than it has been in recent years. And in any case, operating in such a remote region requires active movement and reliable logistics to ensure the safety of military installations. The projects will require serious capital investment, which Russia's unstable economy is not ready for.

Last, the Kremlin can achieve its imperative of securing a buffer zone without resorting to war. For Moscow, a peaceful stabilization in Donbass is a suboptimal but entirely acceptable outcome. Any truce thereto would paint Russian President Vladimir Putin as a peace negotiator who put an end to the frozen conflict, likely raising his approval ratings and world standing. In short, Putin can’t enter a crisis and leave with nothing. The U.S. has even less reason to intervene in a conflict far from its borders with no exit strategy.

Russia wants to appear ready to wage war without losing any leverage at the negotiating table. For its part, the U.S. suspects Russia is probably bluffing. It understands Russia’s limits, and it’s seen this movie before. Russia will continue to conduct operations to try to achieve control over the buffer zone, and the U.S. will be unhappy with those actions, but both sides understand that to ease tensions, they will have to have a dialogue not with the EU, NATO or Ukraine but with each other.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 19, 2022, 04:13:36 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #259 on: January 19, 2022, 04:07:48 PM »
"I thought we were all of the opinion that US troops would be profoundly unwise?"

well isn't that what "all options are on the table" means

it is the most stupid bluff our idiotic leaders use

it is something Hillary would be saying, or Obamster , as they always did

just so empty is is laughable

(except for Trump who did not bluff)

the honest thing to say would be:  we are going to have a chat (or since it is now vogue - a 'conversation ') with "our friends and allies"

while Russian tanks and troops are rolling onto the streets of Kyiv.

unless Putin himself is bluffing which I still think he is .................


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 06:43:29 PM by G M »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Sleepwalking into WWIII
« Reply #261 on: January 20, 2022, 07:59:38 PM »
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/video-guest-tucker-carlson-sounds-alarm-biden-sleepwalking-us-war-russia-not-just-nuts-dangerous-precipice-conflict-unseen-since-w/


Matthew Bracken
@Matt_Bracken

5h
·
·

Edited
In 1990 James Baker promised Gorbachev an "Austrian solution" in return for Soviet armed forces leaving Eastern Europe. Specially, we would not expand NATO eastward. The Russians feel totally lied to and betrayed, that our promises were worthless.

You can say, "Tough shit, Russia, that's the way the ball bounces," as we expanded NATO from Estonia to Romania, including missile bases in Poland etc.

But if you want to instigate a land war in Europe, there is no better way than to tell Russian we have the right to include Ukraine in NATO at our pleasure.

Ukraine and Belorussia have been "STRONGLY" part of Russia for many centuries. Their status as "independent nations" has mainly been a fiction. Because of the flat terrain and difficulty in defending Mother Russia from invasion, these 2 countries have been kept rigidly under Russia's control as buffer states. So in the Russian psyche, the chance of Ukraine joining NATO is a chance worth going to war over.

If our diplomats are too stupid or mendacious to understand that, please don't be surprised if the Russians move to secure eastern Ukraine by force of arms.

To Russia, this is EXACTLY like Communist China, during a period of extreme U.S. economic weakness, suborning, bribing and buying influence from Panama to finally Mexico, with a Mexican CCP puppet president "requesting" CCP armed forces to "guarantee their security against Yankee aggression."

You can say, "that is not a good analogy," but what you or I think means nothing. It's what the Russians believe about Ukraine that counts.

We are stumbling stupidly into a land war in Europe, by refusing the simple promise of a neutral Ukraine, aka, "The Austrian Solution" that James Baker promised Gorbachev, even now at the last moment, in the last country.

Russia WILL go to war over Ukraine, and it's because we are too proud and stupid to say, "Let Ukraine remain neutral, like Austria."

We are "holding onto the right to invite any damn country into NATO," and over this prideful blunder, we are going to blunder into war.

And unless we go nuclear, Russia will kick our asses and humiliate the West in Ukraine. Their theater-level military forces makes our ability to project regional power a trivial joke. They hold us in special disregard now after our humiliating and disgraceful exist from Afghanistan.

And the current POTUS is such a senile fool that he said on a world stage yesterday what he was not supposed to say out loud, that the U.S. position is that a small incursion would invite a small response. His cabinet and media sycophants have been cleaning up that mess all day.

God help us.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #262 on: January 21, 2022, 10:38:32 AM »
I thought we were all of the opinion that US troops would be profoundly unwise?

I am. But the sooper geniuses that brought us disaster in Afghanistan are ready for a whole other disaster with a nuclear armed near peer.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397498.php

Here is our disaster.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #267 on: January 21, 2022, 07:35:18 PM »
Some interesting thoughts in there.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #268 on: January 21, 2022, 07:44:49 PM »
Well, I'm not against Europe looking to itself.  The idea of the US carrying the load while Germany e.g. gets to free rider is not a persuasive one for me.

Daily Memo: Johnson and Scholz Talk Ukraine
European leaders are urging for a coordinated response to Russia.
By: Geopolitical Futures
Concerns over Ukraine. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson discussed the situation in Ukraine with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Thursday. Both expressed concerns over Russia’s actions, and Johnson called for a coordinated response from NATO members. Also on Thursday, the president of the European Commission reiterated the threat of new sanctions against Russia if Moscow attacks Ukraine. Meanwhile, Spain’s defense minister said on Thursday that Madrid sent warships to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. She added that Spain was considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria to contribute to the deterrence efforts against Russia.

MARC:  But all this is but the appetizer.  Ultimately all this must be assessed in terms of China going after Taiwan.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Dick Morris vs Tucker Carlson
« Reply #270 on: January 22, 2022, 08:03:46 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/dick-morris-tucker-carlson-pro-putin-ukraine/2022/01/21/id/1053466/

 :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not wanting WWIII over a conflict we don’t have a strategic interest in doesn’t mean that one loves Putin.

Unless/until we unfcuk this country, we have no business mucking around in Europe. If Russian tanks roll into Paris, it’s a better scenario than the current path of islamicization they are currently on.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Threat inflation
« Reply #272 on: January 22, 2022, 11:15:08 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
Russians planning puppet?
« Reply #273 on: January 22, 2022, 03:51:21 PM »

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1695
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #274 on: January 23, 2022, 03:51:46 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
How to Retreat from Ukraine
« Reply #275 on: January 23, 2022, 08:58:46 AM »
By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist

One of the hardest challenges in geopolitics is figuring out how to conduct a successful retreat. We witnessed that reality last summer in Afghanistan, when the Biden administration made the correct strategic choice — cutting our losses instead of escalating to preserve a morally bankrupt status quo — but then staggered through a disastrous withdrawal that wounded his presidency and laid bare American incompetence to a watching world.

Now we face the same problem with Ukraine. The United States in its days as a hyperpower made a series of moves to extend our perimeter of influence deep into Russia’s near-abroad. Some of those moves appear to be sustainable: The expansion of NATO to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact was itself a risk, but at the moment those commitments seem secure. But the attempt to draw Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit, the partway-open door to Ukrainians who preferred westward-focused alliances, was a foolish overcommitment even when American power was at its height.

Note that this is not a question of what Ukrainians deserve. Russia is an authoritarian aggressor in the current crisis; Ukraine is a flawed democracy but a more decent regime than Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy. When we gave Ukraine security assurances under Bill Clinton, opened the door to NATO membership under George W. Bush and supported the Maidan protests under Barack Obama, we were in each case acting with better intentions than Moscow in its own machinations.

But in geopolitics good intentions are always downstream from the realities of power. Whatever its desires or ours, the government in Ukraine has simply never been in a position to fully join the West — it’s too economically weak, too internally divided and simply in the wrong place. And the actions of the Bush and Obama administrations — and for all of Trump’s personal sympathies for Putin, some Trump administration acts as well — have left us overstretched, our soft-power embrace of Kyiv ill-equipped to handle hard-power countermoves from Moscow.

Given those realities, and the pressing need to concentrate American power in East Asia to counter China, it’s clear enough where an ideal retreat would end up: with NATO expansion permanently tabled, with Ukraine subject to inevitable Russian pressure but neither invaded nor annexed, and with our NATO allies shouldering more of the burden of maintaining a security perimeter in Eastern Europe.

But as with Afghanistan, the actual execution is harder than the theory. Coming to a stable understanding with Putin is challenging, because he’s clearly invested in being a permanent disrupter, taking any opportunity to humiliate the West. Extricating ourselves from our Ukrainian entanglements will inevitably instill doubts about our more important commitments elsewhere, doubts that will be greater the more Kyiv suffers from our retreat. And handing off more security responsibility to the Europeans has been an unmet goal of every recent U.S. president, with the particular problem that a key European power, Germany, often acts like a de facto ally of the Russians.

Given those difficulties, the Biden administration’s wavering course has been understandable, even if the president’s recent news conference was too honest by several orders of magnitude. The United States cannot do nothing if Russia invades Ukraine; we also would be insane to join the war on Ukraine’s side. So the White House’s quest for the right in-between response, some balance of sanctions and arms shipments, looks groping and uncertain for good reason: There’s simply no perfect answer here, only a least-bad balancing of options.

But my sense is that we are still placing too much weight on the idea that only NATO gets to say who is in NATO, that simply ruling out Ukrainian membership is somehow an impossible concession. This conceit is an anachronism, an artifact of the post-Cold War moment when it briefly seemed possible that, as the historian Adam Tooze puts it, the world’s crucial boundaries “would be drawn by the Western powers, the United States and the E.U., on their own terms and to suit their own strengths and preferences.”

That’s not how the world works now, and precisely because it’s not how the world works, I would be somewhat relieved — as an American citizen, not just an observer of international politics — to see our leaders acknowledge as much, rather than holding out the idea that someday we might be obliged by treaty to risk a nuclear war over the Donbas.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: How to Retreat from Ukraine
« Reply #276 on: January 23, 2022, 09:54:50 AM »
Exactly!

By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist

One of the hardest challenges in geopolitics is figuring out how to conduct a successful retreat. We witnessed that reality last summer in Afghanistan, when the Biden administration made the correct strategic choice — cutting our losses instead of escalating to preserve a morally bankrupt status quo — but then staggered through a disastrous withdrawal that wounded his presidency and laid bare American incompetence to a watching world.

Now we face the same problem with Ukraine. The United States in its days as a hyperpower made a series of moves to extend our perimeter of influence deep into Russia’s near-abroad. Some of those moves appear to be sustainable: The expansion of NATO to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact was itself a risk, but at the moment those commitments seem secure. But the attempt to draw Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit, the partway-open door to Ukrainians who preferred westward-focused alliances, was a foolish overcommitment even when American power was at its height.

Note that this is not a question of what Ukrainians deserve. Russia is an authoritarian aggressor in the current crisis; Ukraine is a flawed democracy but a more decent regime than Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy. When we gave Ukraine security assurances under Bill Clinton, opened the door to NATO membership under George W. Bush and supported the Maidan protests under Barack Obama, we were in each case acting with better intentions than Moscow in its own machinations.

But in geopolitics good intentions are always downstream from the realities of power. Whatever its desires or ours, the government in Ukraine has simply never been in a position to fully join the West — it’s too economically weak, too internally divided and simply in the wrong place. And the actions of the Bush and Obama administrations — and for all of Trump’s personal sympathies for Putin, some Trump administration acts as well — have left us overstretched, our soft-power embrace of Kyiv ill-equipped to handle hard-power countermoves from Moscow.

Given those realities, and the pressing need to concentrate American power in East Asia to counter China, it’s clear enough where an ideal retreat would end up: with NATO expansion permanently tabled, with Ukraine subject to inevitable Russian pressure but neither invaded nor annexed, and with our NATO allies shouldering more of the burden of maintaining a security perimeter in Eastern Europe.

But as with Afghanistan, the actual execution is harder than the theory. Coming to a stable understanding with Putin is challenging, because he’s clearly invested in being a permanent disrupter, taking any opportunity to humiliate the West. Extricating ourselves from our Ukrainian entanglements will inevitably instill doubts about our more important commitments elsewhere, doubts that will be greater the more Kyiv suffers from our retreat. And handing off more security responsibility to the Europeans has been an unmet goal of every recent U.S. president, with the particular problem that a key European power, Germany, often acts like a de facto ally of the Russians.

Given those difficulties, the Biden administration’s wavering course has been understandable, even if the president’s recent news conference was too honest by several orders of magnitude. The United States cannot do nothing if Russia invades Ukraine; we also would be insane to join the war on Ukraine’s side. So the White House’s quest for the right in-between response, some balance of sanctions and arms shipments, looks groping and uncertain for good reason: There’s simply no perfect answer here, only a least-bad balancing of options.

But my sense is that we are still placing too much weight on the idea that only NATO gets to say who is in NATO, that simply ruling out Ukrainian membership is somehow an impossible concession. This conceit is an anachronism, an artifact of the post-Cold War moment when it briefly seemed possible that, as the historian Adam Tooze puts it, the world’s crucial boundaries “would be drawn by the Western powers, the United States and the E.U., on their own terms and to suit their own strengths and preferences.”

That’s not how the world works now, and precisely because it’s not how the world works, I would be somewhat relieved — as an American citizen, not just an observer of international politics — to see our leaders acknowledge as much, rather than holding out the idea that someday we might be obliged by treaty to risk a nuclear war over the Donbas.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
overcompensation now after Afghanistan?
« Reply #277 on: January 23, 2022, 09:55:51 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/23/u-s-aircraft-carrier-strike-group-heads-for-mediterranean-amid-russia-threats/

one just has to wonder
is blinks flex his huge biceps here to

try to make up for making fools out of us in Afghanistan?

trying to get their "mojo back " ?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: overcompensation now after Afghanistan?
« Reply #278 on: January 23, 2022, 10:25:01 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/23/u-s-aircraft-carrier-strike-group-heads-for-mediterranean-amid-russia-threats/

one just has to wonder
is blinks flex his huge biceps here to

try to make up for making fools out of us in Afghanistan?

trying to get their "mojo back " ?

That's part of it. The other part is an attempt to "wag the dog" to distract from the utter disaster the Biden administration has been since they stole the election.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
the hypersonic missiles really THAT fast?
« Reply #280 on: January 23, 2022, 11:12:11 AM »
hypersonic

I read the hypersonic missiles being developed ~ Mach 5
that is ~ 3500 mph

but

the typical intercontinental ballistic missile is
7 km/sec = ~ 15,000 mph

based on a google search

I guess if they can travel 3,500 mph within the low atmosphere
that is faster than almost all jets that is really fast



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: the hypersonic missiles really THAT fast?
« Reply #281 on: January 23, 2022, 11:15:57 AM »
hypersonic

I read the hypersonic missiles being developed ~ Mach 5
that is ~ 3500 mph

but

the typical intercontinental ballistic missile is
7 km/sec = ~ 15,000 mph

based on a google search

I guess if they can travel 3,500 mph within the low atmosphere
that is faster than almost all jets that is really fast

This isn’t playing “whack-a-mole” with haji. Russia and China can inflict serious casualties upon us without going nuclear.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: the hypersonic missiles really THAT fast?
« Reply #282 on: January 23, 2022, 01:58:09 PM »
hypersonic

I read the hypersonic missiles being developed ~ Mach 5
that is ~ 3500 mph

but

the typical intercontinental ballistic missile is
7 km/sec = ~ 15,000 mph

based on a google search

I guess if they can travel 3,500 mph within the low atmosphere
that is faster than almost all jets that is really fast

This isn’t playing “whack-a-mole” with haji. Russia and China can inflict serious casualties upon us without going nuclear.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32087/admiral-warns-americas-east-coast-is-no-longer-a-safe-haven-thanks-to-russian-subs

As far as nuclear...





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
POTP
« Reply #287 on: January 24, 2022, 07:47:49 AM »
NATO sends more ships, fighter jets to Eastern Europe as Russia masses troops on Ukraine border

Civilian participants in a Kyiv Territorial Defense unit train on Jan. 22 in Kyiv, Ukraine. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
By Robyn Dixon and David L. Stern
Today at 5:42 a.m. EST|Updated today at 9:43 a.m. EST



MOSCOW — NATO said Monday it would send additional ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe as Britain ordered some diplomats and their families to leave Ukraine, amid growing alarm that Russia may invade as it masses tens of thousands of troops near the border.

The moves came after the United States on Sunday ordered families of diplomats to leave Kyiv and authorized nonessential diplomatic staff to leave. The State Department also cautioned American citizens to consider leaving Ukraine, with U.S. officials warning that an attack could happen “at any time.”

NATO said Monday its members are “putting forces on standby and sending additional ships and fighter jets to NATO deployments in eastern Europe, reinforcing Allied deterrence and defence as Russia continues its military build-up in and around Ukraine.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was watching NATO’s moves and President Vladimir Putin was “taking measures to ensure that our security and our interests are properly protected.”

“Unfortunately, we live in such an aggressive environment. Unfortunately, we are all reading reports that NATO is making certain decisions,” Peskov said. “This is the reality in which we exist.”

State Department orders U.S. Embassy staff families to leave Ukraine
On Jan. 23, the State Department ordered diplomats' families to depart its embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, due to the "continued threat of Russian military actions." (Reuters)
State Department orders diplomats' families to leave U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, citing ‘threat of Russian military action’

Russia has continued to rapidly scale up its military presence near Ukraine and in Belarus to unprecedented levels in recent days, according to military analysts. As Russia massed forces near Ukraine, it made a series of sweeping demands to the United States and NATO last month, including that Ukraine be barred from joining the alliance, a condition that NATO officials ruled out. Diplomatic talks have failed to resolve the crisis.


Russian officials have repeatedly denied any plan to invade Ukraine and asserted that Russia has a right to move troops and hold military exercises on its own territory. Russian and Belarusian officials have announced joint military exercises in Belarus next month, raising Western fears of a possible ground attack on northern Ukraine from Belarus, and Russian military officials announced a naval exercise involving 20 vessels from the Baltic Fleet.

“I welcome Allies contributing additional forces to NATO,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement. “NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend all Allies, including by reinforcing the eastern part of the Alliance.”

Peskov blamed the United States and NATO for the escalation of tensions over Ukraine, accusing them of stoking “informational hysteria” against Russia. He complained of “lies and fakes” coming from Western officials.


“I want to draw your attention to the fact that all of this is not happening because of what we, Russia, are doing. It is all happening because of what the United States [and] NATO are doing and because of the information they are spreading,” Peskov told journalists.

He said the West’s “provocative hysterical actions” have also caused uncertainty and pessimism in global markets.

Peskov also accused Ukraine of boosting its forces along the line of contact that divides Kyiv-controlled Ukraine from two unrecognized separatist republics, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. The regions, backed by Russia, split from Ukraine in 2014 after Moscow annexed Crimea. The resulting conflict in eastern Ukraine, which has killed more than 13,000 people, continues.

The threat of a Ukraine attack against the regions was “now very high,” Peskov claimed.


Ukraine’s foreign ministry spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said that Kyiv had repeated many times that “Ukraine is committed to peace and diplomacy, and does not plan any military attacks.”

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko accused Ukraine of moving forces to its northern border with Belarus and threatened to further bolster the Belarusian side of the border.

“We just want to protect our southern border,” he said, speaking at a meeting with the head of the Belarusian border guards, Anatoly Lappo, BelTA state news agency reported.

Australia also ordered family members of diplomats in Ukraine to leave because of the security situation and warned Australian citizens to depart, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne told Australian officials to send assistance, including support to help Kyiv protect against cyberattacks to help Ukraine defend itself, according to the report.


European Union president Ursula von der Leyen on Monday announced 1.2 billion euros ($1.35 billion) in emergency aid to help Kyiv meet financing needs “due to the conflict.”

Despite the escalation, the bloc’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said Monday that E.U. countries would not scale back staffing at embassies or send diplomatic families home.

“We are not going to do the same thing because we don’t know any specific reasons,” Borrell told journalists before a meeting of E.U. foreign ministers that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was due to join online, Reuters reported. “Negotiations are going on,” Borrell added.

Members of the 27-member bloc have been split on what sanctions should be on the table and whether to send defense weapons to Ukraine.

German officials Monday ruled out any change to Berlin’s decision not to supply Kyiv with defensive weapons but Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Berlin was working with Washington and E.U. members on potential joint sanctions should Russia invade.


The German Foreign Ministry said Monday that families of German diplomats were given the option of leaving Ukraine, but diplomats would stay. “This is the appropriate measure in the current situation,” said spokesman Christofer Burger.

Nikolenko, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Monday the U.S. move to send home some diplomats was premature and overly cautious, given that there has been no material change to Ukraine’s security situation.

“While we respect the right of foreign states to ensure the security of their diplomatic missions, we consider such step by the American side to be premature and sign of excess caution,” he said in a statement. “In fact, there have been no cardinal changes in the security situation recently,” he added, noting that the concentration of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders began last April.

Putin has many options short of a multi-front invasion of Ukraine

Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, said the decisions by the United States and Britain to scale back embassy staff were “worrying” but added that American business executives in Ukraine were doing “business as usual,” while making contingency plans.


“But I think, you know, it still is hoping for the best but preparing for what may come,” Hunder said.

The U.S. Embassy has announced a virtual town hall to update American citizens on the situation Tuesday.

Putin has kept U.S. and NATO officials on edge, claiming Russia is the victim of Western aggression and threatening a “military-technical” response.

A whirlwind of diplomatic efforts among United States and NATO officials and Russian officials in recent weeks has not resolved the impasse.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Monday described the U.S. decision to authorize nonessential staff to leave as “strange.”

“Their information policy agenda is strange and unwise,” Zakharova told independent Echo of Moscow radio. “They’ve been shooting off their reports one after another, but all of them have missed.” She said Russia’s embassy in Kyiv is operating normally, disputing Western media reports that staffing had been reduced.


Earlier, Zakharova accused Washington, not Moscow, of preparing possible “military provocations” in Ukraine in a Telegram post.

U.S. threatens use of novel export control to damage Russia’s strategic industries if Moscow invades Ukraine

She speculated that Washington and its allies were aiming to “prepare” Western public opinion for military action.

Explaining the decision to order diplomatic families to leave, the State Department said that Russia was “conducting disinformation operations and fomenting unrest” in Ukraine. It said it was unclear whether Putin has decidedto invade, “but he is building the military capacity along Ukraine’s borders to have that option ready at any time.”

In recent days, the United States and Britain have aired allegations of two separate Russian plans to destabilize the Ukrainian government and install a pro-Moscow government. Russian officials have denied the allegations.

Britain’s Foreign Office accused Russian intelligence Sunday of plotting to install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv and name former Ukrainian lawmaker Yevhen Murayev as a possible puppet leader. Murayev denied the report. Russia’s embassy in London called on Britain to “stop foolish rhetorical provocations.”

Stern reported from Kyiv, Ukraine. Loveday Morris, reporting from Berlin, contributed.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
NRO
« Reply #289 on: January 24, 2022, 03:34:07 PM »
President Biden rounded out his first year in office inadvertently encouraging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

His now-infamous comment that the Western response to an invasion would depend on whether “it’s a minor incursion” was remarkably, disturbingly candid, demonstrating that Washington and the West could well tolerate a limited Russian attack. Biden also said another unstated assumption out loud: that there’s no transatlantic unity on how to respond to the Russian military buildup. Effectively, he telegraphed to the Kremlin that the U.S. response to an invasion will only be as strong as what its most reticent ally will permit.

The president’s comments laid bare the fundamental problems with this administration’s handling of the situation in Eastern Europe so far. Washington is hesitant to do anything that might be interpreted in Moscow as an escalation. The White House is yielding to German economic interests over Ukraine’s interest in maintaining its independence. It’s taken a Model U.N., kid-glove approach to dealing with a kleptocratic thug who has shown a penchant for invading the democracies bordering Russia. And it has actively lobbied against measures — such as a Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill proposed by Senator Ted Cruz — that would bolster U.S. deterrence.

Biden ascended to the presidency pledging to support U.S. allies and partners. And, to his credit, the administration’s strongest performance throughout this crisis has been the marathon of meetings and calls U.S. officials have conducted with foreign counterparts. But even then, Biden’s “minor incursion” comment prompted an embarrassing, public backlash from Ukrainian officials, with President Volodymyr Zelensky criticizing it on Twitter. Beyond the social-media foibles rests a more important diplomatic fact: For everything Biden and others have said about supporting Ukraine, the president has yet to even nominate an ambassador to the country.

And the consequences of that lackluster approach were on full display last week. Even as U.S. diplomats met their Russian counterparts across a number of different forums in Geneva, Brussels, and Vienna, Moscow was surging forces to Russia’s border with Ukraine. As of now, Russia has the capability to quickly send forces into Ukraine from the north, east, and south of the country; there’s no doubting that Moscow would win any fight it picks decisively. Which is to say nothing of the possibility of a “minor incursion,” to which there’s likely not to be one unified Western response.

Antony Blinken and Sergei Lavrov concluded a round of talks on Friday, with the secretary of state saying he would reply in writing to Russia’s demands that NATO not permit any new members to join the alliance. They’re likely to hold another round in the near future. If Blinken deputy Wendy Sherman’s talks with Russian officials the previous week are any indication, any diplomatic compromise could result in new curbs on military exercises and missile placements. 

As well as abandoning its belief that negotiations on Europe’s security architecture will lead Vladimir Putin to an off-ramp, the White House needs to dispense with the fiction that threatening tough U.S. sanctions in the event of an attack serves any sort of deterrent effect. That’s the approach that the administration and congressional Democrats are rallying behind, with a bill advancing such a policy on the way.

Meanwhile, the administration has been sending badly needed weaponry to the Ukrainians at a glacial pace. The White House just announced that it would deliver Mi-17 helicopters, marking the end of a months-long delay.

But the Ukrainians need more equipment, including Javelin anti-tank missiles and air-defense systems. And the administration should be complementing arms shipments with biting sanctions, starting immediately, not after Russia attacks.

The GUARD Act proposal put forward by congressional Republicans is a good alternative. That bill would immediately boost funding for transferring lethal weaponry to Ukraine, increase annual U.S. funding of Ukraine’s military forces, and impose sanctions to kill the Kremlin-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Lawmakers should also revive another sanctions proposal that the administration successfully blocked from the annual defense bill — legislation targeting 35 oligarchs named by Putin antagonist Alexei Navalny.

Congress, however, can only get the president to do so much, and he’s shown no sign so far of rising to the challenge.

In more ways than one, Ukraine is already under attack. Russian forces occupy the East of the country, and Moscow recently demonstrated its ability to knock Ukrainian government websites offline. The worst may be yet to come.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
GPF: What the failure of the US/NATO-Russia talks means
« Reply #290 on: January 25, 2022, 03:26:31 AM »
From Jan 19

What the Failure of the US-NATO-Russia Talks Means
Putin can’t enter the Ukraine crisis and leave with nothing.

By Ekaterina Zolotova -January 19, 2022Open as PDF
Negotiations last week between the United States and Russia say a lot without saying much at all. Talks first took place on Jan. 9 ahead of more official discussions in Geneva the next day. A few days later, Russia and NATO spoke in Brussels about Ukraine and, related, the non-expansion of NATO to the east.

There was never much hope for the negotiations, the top agenda for which was Russia’s proposals for security guarantees, especially vis-a-vis NATO. The three parties ended their talks agreeing only that disagreements remain. After the meetings, the media naturally began to talk about escalation and preparations for an invasion of Ukraine. But this “escalation” looks like a tactic rather than a true position, an attempt by Russia to pressure its adversaries to participate in additional meetings and thus ensure the safety of its precious buffer zones.

Buffer Between Russia and NATO
(click to enlarge)

Showtime

Even during the negotiations, Russia began to up its psychological pressure on the U.S. and NATO. For example, it initiated military exercises in the western regions of Voronezh, Belgorod, Bryansk and Smolensk – all of them close to the Ukrainian border. (Roughly 3,000 troops participated.) The purpose of the drills was clear: to demonstrate its capabilities and a desire to protect its interests. Psychological operations such as these are particularly important to Moscow, which believes it needs to stand its ground without resorting to war or incurring additional sanctions.

Conflict in Eastern Ukraine
(click to enlarge)

The purpose of Moscow’s demands is also pretty clear. It wanted a guarantee from NATO and Washington that they would not use neighboring countries to prepare for or carry out an armed attack on Russia. It wanted Washington to halt the eastward expansion of NATO, refusing the admission of all former Soviet satellite states. And it wanted assurances that the U.S. would not create military bases in those states, and that NATO would cease military activities in Ukraine as well as other parts of Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Without these guarantees, Russia will inevitably feel vulnerable in its western borderlands. Indeed, one of its most important geopolitical imperatives is to maintain a buffer zone between its heartland and external threats from Europe.

Of course, the Kremlin never expected the U.S. to capitulate to its demands last week. But it had hoped that the West would at least soften some of its stances on these issues. And since the negotiations didn’t go anywhere, we can all expect Russia to act a little more aggressively, if only rhetorically, in the near term. After all, the borderlands remain unsecured: There is a frozen conflict in Donbass, the Caucasus region is constantly challenged by Turkey, and Central Asia is still unstable. In a recent interview with CNN, for example, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov made several statements that Russia’s relations with NATO are approaching a redline thanks to the alliance’s military support for Ukraine. He went on to say that NATO is a tool of confrontation, that Russia is seeing a gradual NATO invasion of Ukraine, and that proposed U.S. sanctions against Russian leaders could lead to the termination of bilateral relations. Moreover, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, a direct participant in negotiations, said in an interview with RTVI that he cannot rule out the possibility of deploying military assets to Cuba and Venezuela if negotiations with the West fail. Again, this may all be rhetorical, but it nonetheless puts the U.S. on the defensive – and publicly at that.

Aside from heightened rhetoric, Russia has openly stepped up military movements. Over the past week, several dozen videos on TikTok and Instagram have shown the transfer of military personnel and equipment from Siberia and the Far East to Russia’s western regions. Soon thereafter, the Tank Army of the Western Military District began exercises in five regions, in which more than 800 servicemen and more than 300 weapons were involved. Elsewhere, Russian troops began to arrive in southern and western Belarus for exercises. With these moves, Russia intends to send the message that its forces are ready.

Limits

Despite this performative maneuvering, and despite reports of possible strikes, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest neither Russia nor the United States is interested in a serious military confrontation.

First, if Russia wanted a confrontation, it would have done it quietly. Well-advertised military movements, particularly ones involving soldiers from the polar opposite end of the country, surrender any element of surprise Russia could have hoped to have. And though the numbers of troops and tanks in western Russia seem large, they are not nearly enough to wage a winnable war in the vast lands of Ukraine. (Notably, the repositioning of Russian materiel has been underway for nearly a year; it didn’t just start last week.)

Second, deploying weapons or troops to Cuba and Venezuela is no easy task. It would be difficult in the best of times, but these are not the best of times. Bilateral cooperation between them and Russia, for example, is far weaker than it has been in recent years. And in any case, operating in such a remote region requires active movement and reliable logistics to ensure the safety of military installations. The projects will require serious capital investment, which Russia’s unstable economy is not ready for.

Last, the Kremlin can achieve its imperative of securing a buffer zone without resorting to war. For Moscow, a peaceful stabilization in Donbass is a suboptimal but entirely acceptable outcome. Any truce thereto would paint Russian President Vladimir Putin as a peace negotiator who put an end to the frozen conflict, likely raising his approval ratings and world standing. In short, Putin can’t enter a crisis and leave with nothing. The U.S. has even less reason to intervene in a conflict far from its borders with no exit strategy.

Russia wants to appear ready to wage war without losing any leverage at the negotiating table. For its part, the U.S. suspects Russia is probably bluffing. It understands Russia’s limits, and it’s seen this movie before. Russia will continue to conduct operations to try to achieve control over the buffer zone, and the U.S. will be unhappy with those actions, but both sides understand that to ease tensions, they will have to have a dialogue not with the EU, NATO or Ukraine but with each other.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
What to expect if things go hot in Ukraine
« Reply #291 on: January 25, 2022, 04:03:56 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
General Keane a few days ago
« Reply #293 on: January 26, 2022, 07:33:12 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72319
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #298 on: January 28, 2022, 06:54:25 PM »
How embarrassing for America  :-P :-P :oops:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Western Europe needs MOAR green energy!
« Reply #299 on: January 29, 2022, 09:39:26 AM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/28/what-if-russia-turns-off-the-gas-europe-assesses-its-options-amid-ukraine-crisis.html

Enjoy your global warming virtue signaling as you freeze in the dark, eurotards!