Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Anastasis 23469]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except we don’t agree. Because everything we know about Russia came from either some intelligence services and/or was reported by the media. So, intelligence and the media are bad, and can’t be trusted, so really, do we know that Russia has EVER done anything bad? Nope, we don’t, so LEAVE RUSSIA ALONE!

It get fucking old, and you’re goddamned well aware that you use that approach to de facto excuse any wrongdoing by genuine bad actors.

It's funny watching you lob claims of logical fallacy at others, while you wallow around in them yourself.

Here's the post. You either agree with it or you don't. Or you deflect to something about the "SVR press inbox". Carry on. 

Really shocked to see the NYT doing stenography for the intelligence community. 

 

ETA: Apologies to others for how that comment devolved into this. This is truly one of the best treads on this board at the moment, so will bow out and let it proceed. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Anastasis

[bolverk 29660]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They would get a longer leash if not the long list of failures costing American lives, not to note the less easily measured endpoints.  

But it's really great that pointing out the failures of the US IC and the intertwined US media becomes an exercise in excusing them because all the bad things that we agree Russia has done. 

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.

And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 

BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext

France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack

Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack

Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack

NY Post 😲  US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine

How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

[Brisketexan 105095]

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.
And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 
BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext
France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack
Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack
Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack
NY Post   US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine
How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

He fucking only and always attacks the messenger, with perfect consistency with respect to - PURELY coincidentally - the exact same viewpoints spouted by Tucker and his ilk. His “what, this little old thing?” act about his post, which had a transparent and purposeful agenda, is indeed chefs kiss perfection.

He will never address the substance. He is everything he accuses others of being. And it’s pretty much perfectly on-brand for him to come over and bring his standard schtick over here to fuck up what otherwise is a great thread.

Everything Anastasis touches turns to shit (recipe threads excepted, but give him time….)

[atomheartbevo 89648]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Remember in 2014 when a bunch of Russians just took their patches and insignia off their uniforms and the world media seriously debated if they were really Russian soldiers or not?  That was wild, right? Yeah, Putin learned that he can half-ass this stuff and it will give him all the cover he needs. 

Or in 2018 when hundreds of Russian "mercenaries" attacked a small group of 40 or so Green Berets and Marines in Syria, and American artillery and airpower absolutely slaughtered them.  I'm surprised that didn't get more play worldwide, and I have a hard time believing that was just a group of mercenaries hired by the Syrians to go attack an American outpost.  Not a lot of PMCs would be foolish enough to say "okay, sure, we'll attack an American outpost, that has American artillery and aerial coverage."

[atomheartbevo 89648]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Hitler also didn’t have spy satellites and was fighting a two front war. Images of China readying an invasion and landing force would make for interesting tabletop analysis. I wonder what a carrier battle group parked in the Taiwan Strait would mean for their planners? 

Don't have to be that close, and don't have to completely shut down Chinese aerial and naval forces - just knock down enough that they never get a solid beachhead established.  

People think of seaborne invasions in terms of 1944 Normandy, but unlike 1944, the Chinese do not have the luxury of parking big-ass cargo ships 10 or 20 miles off the coast of Taiwan and start unloading troops into simple landing craft, all the while without being attacked by precision missiles.  It doesn't take many missiles to completely wreck, or at the very least, really spread out the Chinese forces, and those kinds of craft are easily sunk.

On D-Day, we landed nearly 160,000 Americans with around 5,000 landing craft.  The Chinese have around 60 dedicated landing/assault craft in their navy.

They also have around 220 transport craft in their air force, but even then they are highly limited - I've seen reports that they can only airlift around one division of paratroopers at any one time, and even that requires a lot of time (since some of those craft are small). 

I know people say they will rely on their civil aviation airliners, but holy fuck those things would get shot down fast, and if they are doing anything other than dropping paratroopers really close to the shore, they will get shot down.  If they try to land, they need long runways in Taiwan that are easily destroyed by the Taiwanese (which they would do if needed).  Dudes with machine guns  in the buildings around the airports would shred those airliners

It's a weird thing - it's not quite as bad as Germany's lack of ability to invade England in WWII, but it puts China in the position of just having to kill a shitload of civilians as their main means of attack and hoping that's enough for Taiwan to surrender.  Slaughtering civilians left and right won't play well on the world stage, and would make the Chinese military look weak.

Edited February 4, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I’d imagine Xi’s idea of acceptable losses would make Stalin blush.

Doubtful……HIGHLY doubtful.  Stalin is still about at the top when it comes to killing his own people . Mao was worse, but Uncle Joe held his own.

I don’t think anything would get a rise out of that sick fuck.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

…

Edited February 4, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Parliament 14255]

Guys this is an awesome thread, and you're wrecking it with your pissbagging.  There's an entire Cloak Room to do that in.  This thread here is for mature grownups who aren't aholes.  Thank you.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Parliament

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Guys this is an awesome thread

Agree.  Largely because there are a few very knowledgeable individuals sharing perspectives and back and forth that you will not get from American media coverage. 

[workswithseed 2101]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.

And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 

BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext

France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack

Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack

Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack

NY Post 😲  US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine

How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

Like I said in the Joe Biden thread. "WMD are in the middle east." Paraphrasing, but you get the schtick, this isn't new.

[Schulz2.0 28951]

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

For me, the only question that is interesting is why Putin wants to talk to Macron and Schulz.

 

I'm pretty interesting.

[Shady Ray 1633]

13 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's no different from the Anglo-French behavior at Munich. They went in asserting that Czechoslovakia had some obligation to reduce tensions with Germany.  And, as appears to happen here, the French and British negotiated directly with the aggressor while excluding the victim of the aggression from any of the discussions over its fate.

Honestly, I can't imagine Macron falling back into that trap.  And I really have to hope that this is some sort of good-cop/bad-cop act that is being choreographed between Paris and Washington.

  

You would think, but there are a lot of other issues going in the background that - at least to a French President or a German Chancellor - are far more significant than the future of a Ukraine that, let’s face it, no one in Paris or Berlin really cares that much about. Plus, neither government really believes this is as likely/possible as the US/UK does. Ultimately, from Macron’s standpoint, this whole issue in Ukraine is a major distraction that is now costing him precious time in an environment in which he FINALLY has some room to maneuver now that Mama Merkel and the British are gone. 
 

Macron has a certain idea of how Europe should look and function. Outside of the budgetary hole left by Brexit, which was certainly a loss for the EU, the departure of America’s proxy in Brussels has given France much more opportunity to shape Europe. Macron envisions some type of EU that is co-lead by France and Germany and which functions in much more of a federalized way…specifically in abandoning unanimity and moving to majority voting for foreign policy/security decisions taken by the block. Unfortunately for Macron, however, Germany doesn’t quite see things this way…yet. The Germans associate the Latins/Greeks as being lazy and living beyond their means, always seeking help from the bountiful, supple German titty, all so that they can continue living their nice and comfortable ways of life while the Germans work their asses off (relatively speaking…by American standards the Germans don’t work nearly as much or as hard). However, with the departure of Merkel and the subsequent “unorthodox” and unstable tripartite coalition in Berlin, Macron has a golden opportunity - at least in his mind - to secure meaningful reform with respect to fiscal policy and as he so often calls it “strategic autonomy”, for the EU, supposedly allowing for less influence from non-EU powers….read, the US. While boring in comparison to topics of war and peace, securing reforms in this direction would be legacy-defining acheivement in the grand scheme of European integration. After his likely re-election in April, Macron would be able to focus entirely on his goal of this further EU integration, which will invariably benefit France across the board if they are the ones driving it in Brussels. And by reasonable estimates, he would have 2-3 years to make meaningful changes in this area, as Germany is not up for another federal election until late 2025. So he’s hoping to maximize the few years that he has to work with a generally soft, malleable Olaf Scholz in Berlin, who comes from a party open to deeper European integration, even on issues of finance and budgetary matters. This is a golden opportunity for France to reshuffle the upper echelon of EU politics and policy, and it would allow them to set the initial course on what will be a greater journey to a reformed EU with their targets in focus.
 

But there is a huge, huge problem for Macron's vision on the horizon...and that is this guy:

 

Friedrich Merz was just elected head of the CDU, after they had run en entirely incompetent, pathetic little man, Armin Laschet, against Scholz last September because the CDU couldn't stand the idea of letting a popular Bavarian from the junior-partner CSU, Markus Söder, take the Chancellery. Laschet squandered a 25 point lead in the six weeks following his replacement of Merkel atop the CDU. He was a disastrous candidate. Don’t even get me started on his incompetence as a politician. But in the time since Merz formally took over the CDU a couple weeks back, the CDU has reversed course and surpassed the governing SPD and is moving towards re-solidifying its recent position as the dominant political party in Germany. This should not give any hope to those who think that the SPD is suffering losses due to their non-involvement position re Russia, as in fact the CDU is just as obstinate on that front. They want NS2 and they oppose SWIFT/Banking sanctions. They might make some noise supporting a reconsideration of arms to Ukraine, but nothing beyond tokenism made for the sole purpose of rattling the Scholz government in its early days.
 

Anyway, Merz is the complete and total opposite of the CDU coin from Merkel. He is known to be ruthless, he is blunt, he is cocky, he is comfortable with public displays of power, and he is much, much more comfortable with a Germany that publicly flexes its muscle at the EU level, even if it is perceived to be in a patronizing way towards smaller and weaker EU members. He is also the closest thing that Germany can get to having the highest tier of German Industry formally in the Chancellery. He is a corporate lawyer/executive-level operator with a deep, deep history in conservative governments stretching back to the early Helmut Kohl years, where he and a group of other young Christian Democrats decided to form a tight knit group called the Andean Pact, in which they all agreed to help escalate each other into the highest level of German Industrial and Political Power, which they successfully did. He is something akin to a German mix of Dick Cheney (minus the hard-on for foreign wars and interventions), and Helmut Kohl insofar as he will advocate ruthlessly for German interests within the workings of European politics and will go a long way to secure them. Without getting into historical details, Merkel knifed Kohl in the back, thus washing this inner core of CDU “good old boys club” out of the scene for twenty years. With Merz back - which Merkel did everything possible to thwart for the past 3 years by escalating lesser, weaker CDU “heir apparents” - the heavy hitter Conservatives are back and likely to assume the levers of control of Germany, so the CDU will look and behave much differently, which will influence the dynamic at the EU level.
 

But perhaps nowhere is Merz more rigid and austere than with respect to the EU financial mechanisms. If he rises to the Chancellery, the idea of European debt subsidized by Germany will be killed. The Bundesbank will become assertive again vis a vis the European Central Bank, as it was a few years back, and Merz will have an indisputable mandate from the voters NOT to budge on any deeper financial integration. This is a huge problem for Macron and Draghi’s goal of a power shift to a Rome-Paris alliance. That will be dead in the water, which will kill the foundation on which this Franco-Italian reformation plan is built.
 

Here are yesterdays German polls:

As you can see, the trends favor Merz and I would not be one bit surprised to see the CDU settle back at around 35%, with the SPD settling back to 17-19% within six months. Because that is the natural political landscape here. The 2021 election was an anomaly driven by Merkel Fatigue and Incompetent Armin Laschet. So you have a weird situation where a new Chancellor kind of backed his way in without a true political base, which is terrible for stability. But the fundamentals of German politics put the CDU at around that 33-37% mark, occasionally rising into the low 40s under Angie. But what is important to remember is that Germany is currently in a three-way government with two center left wing parties, plus this weird third wheel Free Democrat party, which essentially represents peak German mercantilism/social liberalism and is only tangentially invested in this government's success beyond their own political upward mobility.

 

This is the first time in the Post-War era that Germany has needed a three-way coalition, so we are in uncharted waters here, but the fact that the new inherently weak coalition had no time to get its sea-legs under it before this Ukraine crisis kicked off has left it completely unstable and ripe for snap elections within the next 18-24 months. Furthermore, there is a huge scandal bubbling up involving inappropriate dealings between Scholz and the Warburg Bank, stretching back to his time as mayor of Hamburg. I won’t bore with the details, but just know that it is ugly stuff and the question is not “if” that scandal hits, it is “when.” The discussion on that is starting to shift from the whispers of the political class to larger distribution increasing visibility and my bet would be it will explode at a time when the CDU is ready to assert enough power to get to a possible two-party coalition, possibly with the Free Democrats, who, of course, are in the existing Scholz coalition as the red-headed step children. If early elections happen, Merz will be the next chancellor. And if they somehow don’t happen and the current coalition serves out, barring some type of drastic scandal involving Merz, he will still be the next chancellor. And the day that happens, Macron’s vision of a future EU will be much, much less likely. So there is absolutely a window here of anywhere between 1 and 2.5 years that is ripe for the picking SO LONG AS Europe doesn’t get bogged down in the issue of Ukraine. 
 

And as much as we have discussed Macron’s nascent idea of an EU Army, Merz is even more hard core on that front. While he is a transatlanticist to some degree with deep connections to Washington, he is ultimately a Europe Firster and will be much more open to accelerating a path towards an independent EU foreign policy, only in this case, the spoils of such an eventual expansion will not only go to the French Defense Industry, but will also be shared with German Industry. So, on one hand, Macron will have an ally in the drive to push deeper into an independent path, but on the other hand, it will not be driven solely by Macron and will be influenced by a much more assertive German Chancellery.

 

Here is a letter he co-signed from 2018 relating to the need for deeper European integration on military matters between France and Germany. He specifically calls for immediate steps towards deeper military integration between the “original members of the EU, plus Poland and the Baltics" and the abandonment of unanimity on foreign policy. Of course, if this ever got going it would be a long, slow process, and it will be one that the Poles and the Baltics will be skeptical of, given their tight relationships with NATO and the US. However, with someone like Merz and Macron at the helm of German and France, you can rest assured that Merz specifically will be much, much more willing to leverage EU cohesion funds to try and bring the Eastern Europeans into closer alignment with the Franco-German view. That has shown to bring mixed results, but my point is the tone will change and there will be intense pressure from the big players for deeper integration. I totally agree with 956 that Europe's ability to do this has been less than effective. It has actually been an embarassment to behold. But the drive hasn't really been there, and the question will be whether this is an actual first step towards anythingn significant.

 

So, back to the original point, both France and Germany have major incentives to get this resolved and done ASAP. France wants it done so Macron can maximize the remaining time to drive deeper integration on his/French terms, and Scholz needs this to go away so that his government can settle in from the constant shaking that it has experienced since it took over and prepare for the ascendant CDU. Scholz knows good and well that economic fallout from a Russian war in Ukraine will end his government. Macron knows that a new non-Scholz-led German government will therefore end any chance of being able to operate for a while without Darth Merz on the other side of the Rhine. We are in a very uniquely transitionary 18 months here.

 

And there is a marked shift going on during the past two days in German media. Deutsche Welle, which is of course the German public broadcaster and is closely aligned with the federal government’s viewpoints, ran the following segment last night. It is a remarkably frank and fascinating interview. It is in English, but they translated the entire interview on the German DW channel. It a 15 minute interview with former deputy director of the USMC War College/former Colin Powell Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, and the presenter gets into what is going on in the US. It is not portrayed by Wilkinson in a positive light. They discuss a lot of things that to date have been associated with Russian propaganda. They go in depth with Wilkerson where he says our current involvement in Ukraine is "insane", he talks about how foolish NATO expansion was in the first place and he says it needs to stop, they go into interests in Washington who want to see wars happen, they mention by name Lockheed Martin/Boeing/Raytheon/Northup Grumman etc. as potential beneficiaries by name (even referring to them as oligarchs), they talk about the idea that the US is overextended with Article 5 obligations, and they talk about how the legacy of Iraq II is the erosion of European trust in the US Intel Community. This isn't RT. This is the Deutsche Welle in prime time. Now, they have other pieces that are much more trans-atlanticist, but the point being the debate is now opening up to include ideas that were to date deemed as somewhat taboo, and that is no accident.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Shady Ray

[Hefeweizen 5311]

Wow Shady, a lot to digest there and I’d pay to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Shady Ray 1633]

17 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Wow Shady, a lot to digest there and I’d pay to subscribe to your newsletter.

Yeah, I gotta watch it or I'll end up deep even deeper in the weeds, and nobody wants that. But I really do believe that we are in the middle of a very critical phase in EU and Transatlantic politics that has the potential to be a watershed moment which analysts will eventually identify as a spot where things started to change into a new era of multi-polarity. Europe is flat footed here, but necessity is going to require it to catch up.

 

There is an intrinsic pulling of attention to the East - particularly with the Germans - and there is very much a conflict within the German elites themselves as to whether a third-way/triangulation position is viable. One of the things Wilkerson in the above video talks about is Colin Powell saying to him in 1989, "After Mitterrand and Kohl are gone, the future leaders of Europe will not have their identity re atlanticism firmly rooted in the actual experience of the War. That's when the transatlantic relationship will fray and then sever." I think we are simply dealing with this natural drift of a relationship that is exacerbated by lots and lots of mercantile interests in Russia and China. 

 

Again, I go back to the above video at the 10:10 mark where you actually have a DW anchor saying, "The trust that was broken by the US arising out of Iraq War II lingers in the minds of Europeans to this very day. We see it every day in our reporting. There is a suspicion that the US wants war and that its end-game is the establishment of perpetual war which demands the continuous production of weapons. Is there validity in this suspicion?" To which Wilkerson replies, "there sure is."

 

This is unbelievable content coming from German state media. It is far and away the most criticial that I have ever seen DW and I really don't see that it is being accurately covered in the US at the moment. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

Macron to see Putin in Moscow on Monday, then on to see Zelensky in Kiev on Tuesday. 

 

Good coverage from France 24

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19100]

Of course this is going on now.

Quote

BEIJING — President Xi Jinping of China on Friday offered firm support to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in the Kremlin’s showdown with the West over Ukraine, strengthening a relationship that presents a continuing challenge to the United States’ dominance on the world stage.

In a highly choreographed display of solidarity, the two leaders met in Beijing ahead of the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, the first meeting that Mr. Xi has held in person with a foreign counterpart in nearly two years.

It comes at a moment of escalating tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine. Mr. Putin has amassed more than 100,000 troops to his neighbors north, south and east in what NATO allies view as a menacing prelude to an attack.

In a lengthy joint statement, China accused the United States of stoking protests in Hong Kong and encouraging independence in Taiwan, while Russia said the United States was playing a similarly destabilizing role in Ukraine.

“Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions,” according to the 5,300-word joint statement released by the Kremlin. It said both nations “intend to counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext, oppose color revolutions and will increase cooperation in the aforementioned areas.”

China has said that the world should not be divided into the kind of power blocs that defined the era when the Soviet Union and United States were the two dominant superpowers. And on Friday, China sided with Russia on one of its key security demands: an end to NATO expansion to the east and closer to Russia’s borders.

“The sides oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized Cold War approaches,” the statement said.

Although the intention behind the troop buildup remains uncertain, the Kremlin has accused the United States of exaggerating the threat of an invasion and of raising tensions by deploying its own troops to Eastern Europe. This week, Mr. Putin said the United States was trying to goad the Kremlin into action and complained that the West had ignored Russia’s demands for security guarantees.

In scenes initially shown on Russian state television, Mr. Putin greeted Mr. Xi on a red carpet at the government guesthouse in western Beijing, raising his hand in greeting. The Chinese leader responded, through a translator: “Hello! I’m very glad to see you.”

Mr. Putin told him that the Chinese-Russian relationship had “taken on a truly unprecedented character.” “It is an example of a dignified relationship that helps each of us develop while supporting each other’s development,” Mr. Putin said.

After their meeting, Mr. Putin will attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, as the most prominent of nearly two dozen world leaders whose attendance has blunted the impact of a “diplomatic boycott” by President Biden and other leaders of democratic nations.

Despite extraordinary measures both men have taken during the coronavirus pandemic, neither leader wore a mask as they greeted each other.

In the days leading up to the meeting — the 38th between the two leaders — Beijing expressed support for Mr. Putin’s grievances and it joined Russia to try to block action on Ukraine at the United Nations Security Council.

Although not a party to the conflict, the Chinese government has viewed the showdown as a test of American influence and resolve that could distract Mr. Biden from his administration’s focus on China as the pre-eminent strategic rival of the 21st century.

Any new Chinese promises of economic and political support for Mr. Putin could undermine Mr. Biden’s strategy to ostracize the Russian leader for the military buildup. They could also signal a tectonic shift in the rivalry between the United States and China, with possible reverberations from Europe to the Pacific.

Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin on Friday signaled that their countries would work to establish closer ties on trade, diplomacy and security.

“Friendship between the two states has no limits,” the pair said in their joint statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/03/world/russia-ukraine-xi-putin

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

 

[Parliament 14255]

Paid in Euros.  Is there any meaning in that?

[gsoda3 3254]

21 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Paid in Euros.  Is there any meaning in that?

everything russia and china are doing is aimed to weaken american influence.  one of their "close your eyes and make a wish!" dreams has been to destroy the well-bastioned petrodollar.  if they settle in euros it weakens the reliance on USD. this is one of their arrows against that castle wall.  it's not really anything to worry about, but every rockslide starts with a few pebbles.  what would be unmeasurably worse is if in the future russia and china got close enough to where they sign a mutual defense treaty.  that's the rockslide which crushes traffic below. 

 

 

[BabaYaga 15290]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Agree.  Largely because there are a few very knowledgeable individuals sharing perspectives and back and forth that you will not get from American media coverage. 

How about we defer to those actually in the theatre of operation?  The Ukrainians seem very lukewarm about this entire thing?  As are other EU leaders.  Going so far as to directly blame the US and the MSM for inflammatory rhetoric that is doing more harm than good. 

We just green lit another 3K+ troops to Poland and Romania which is on top of the earlier deployments and existing troops already stationed there.  An entire mechanized division and parts of the 82nd from Bragg as well.  Problem is, this is not a deterrent force.  So what are they doing exactly?  We stated initially that we were going to seek economic sanctions, then there was this massive pivot from the WH?  This is just exacerbating things even more.  

Doesn't Putin, among other things, want the US to formally drop any talks about Ukraine being a part of NATO?  Senator Hawley asked the obvious question as to why we don't do just that?  As things have escalated, does anyone thing Ukraine being a member is ever going to be a viable option?  Or are we going to fall back on the tired talking point of "parroting Russian propaganda"?

[TurkeyChew 383]

3 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Wow Shady, a lot to digest there and I’d pay to subscribe to your newsletter.

Agree and this Merz guy sounds rad.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

3 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Yeah, I gotta watch it or I'll end up deep even deeper in the weeds, and nobody wants that. But I really do believe that we are in the middle of a very critical phase in EU and Transatlantic politics that has the potential to be a watershed moment which analysts will eventually identify as a spot where things started to change into a new era of multi-polarity. Europe is flat footed here, but necessity is going to require it to catch up.

 

There is an intrinsic pulling of attention to the East - particularly with the Germans - and there is very much a conflict within the German elites themselves as to whether a third-way/triangulation position is viable. One of the things Wilkerson in the above video talks about is Colin Powell saying to him in 1989, "After Mitterrand and Kohl are gone, the future leaders of Europe will not have their identity re atlanticism firmly rooted in the actual experience of the War. That's when the transatlantic relationship will fray and then sever." I think we are simply dealing with this natural drift of a relationship that is exacerbated by lots and lots of mercantile interests in Russia and China. 

 

Again, I go back to the above video at the 10:10 mark where you actually have a DW anchor saying, "The trust that was broken by the US arising out of Iraq War II lingers in the minds of Europeans to this very day. We see it every day in our reporting. There is a suspicion that the US wants war and that its end-game is the establishment of perpetual war which demands the continuous production of weapons. Is there validity in this suspicion?" To which Wilkerson replies, "there sure is."

 

This is unbelievable content coming from German state media. It is far and away the most criticial that I have ever seen DW and I really don't see that it is being accurately covered in the US at the moment. 

So is the point now that it would be weirdly in America's interest for Russia to invade Ukraine, because it would demonstrate the Franco-German wishcasting to be just that?

Or will the Germans somehow put the blame on us for Russia once again undertaking an act of aggression against its neighbors?

[MoJames 8244]

Good stuff Shady.

[InkaUtexas 25906]

This thread delivers. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

In an exchange sure to warm the cockles of @Anastasis heart, a reporter rakes Ned Price across the coals over statements about a potential inflammatory and fake video.

The “name the tactic” maneuver you’ve seen from the U.S. and Brits is a deliberate strategy.  Neither entity is going to present the hard intelligence.  The point is the opposite of whipping up war fears.  The point is to put down a marker for Putin and to (hopefully) make the hybrid tactics he chooses unfeasible.  They only work in the fog of misinformation and confusion and both counties have learned their lesson— by the time you soberly present all the evidence you have to an international audience, the damage is done, the fence-sitters have used the confusion as an excuse to sit things out, and the urgency is gone to act decisively. The Brits have been pushing to try this technique since Salisbury. 
 

It’s fine for the press to push on this issue, that’s their job.  But what is really happening is that the UK and U.S. are desperately trying to STOP Putin from deploying these tactics, they are not trying to predict that he will.  The risk, of course, is that if they are successful at heading Putin off at the pass, people will say that all the talk was just alarmist. But better to be thought alarmist than to be caught with your pants down again because you waited till the last minute to pull them up. 

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In an exchange sure to warm the cockles of @Anastasis heart, a reporter rakes Ned Price across the coals over statements about a potential inflammatory and fake video.

LOL when he told him that they were operating in "Alex Jones territory".

Also LOL at Spox @ 4:45: "If you doubt the credibility of the US government....and want to find solace and information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do". 

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

 Good to see a reporter covering this report press them on past failures, evidence, and inconsistencies.

 

Here's another from the same reporter:

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

The reporter is asking them to all but name their intelligence sources and when and where they gathered this intelligence.  I'm not saying the reporter is trying to help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations, but the answers to what he wants would help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations.

On the surface, it may seem reasonable - given our track record with our own beating of the war drums, but we aren't the ones rushing into war - Putin decided he wants to fuck around, and he presents a list of demands that are unreasonable.

And it's not unreasonable to push back on the reporter over this - the Russians were releasing ginned-up propaganda to justify the invasion/occupation of Crimea.

Edited February 4, 2022 by atomheartbevo

[atomheartbevo 89648]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So is the point now that it would be weirdly in America's interest for Russia to invade Ukraine, because it would demonstrate the Franco-German wishcasting to be just that?

It is in NATO's interest.  If Russia invades Ukraine, it justifies NATO's existence, justifies the decisions of those in Eastern Europe who joined NATO, it makes Sweden and particularly Finland start to think about ramping up their "cooperation" with NATO (if not outright join), and it probably causes everybody in NATO to start ramping up their military spending/training.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on Putin's part. Which makes me wonder if invading Ukraine is worth it for Putin.  He questions NATO's relevance/existence over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, then does something that justifies NATO's existence, and pushes additional countries closer into NATO's orbit.  Doesn't seem very bright.

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

The reporter is asking them to all but name their intelligence sources and when and where they gathered this intelligence.  I'm not saying the reporter is trying to help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations, but the answers to what he wants would help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations.

How about just releasing the confidence level assessments by each of the components of the IC?  Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

[RDCanecutter 26411]

10 hours ago, Parliament said:

Paid in Euros.  Is there any meaning in that?

Saw in the NYT that Putin has spent the past decade or so piling up a massive currency reserve to help sanction-proof the Russian economy. Only about 1/6 of his reserve is US Dollars. The rest is mostly Renminbi, Euros, and gold.

Sorry no link but I can wave around the paper paper I read it in.

[Parliament 14255]

10 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Doesn't Putin, among other things, want the US to formally drop any talks about Ukraine being a part of NATO?  Senator Hawley asked the obvious question as to why we don't do just that?  As things have escalated, does anyone thing Ukraine being a member is ever going to be a viable option?  Or are we going to fall back on the tired talking point of "parroting Russian propaganda"?

Seems like that would be capitulation.   

[bolverk 29660]

39 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Seems like that would be capitulation.   

Correct. We'd be giving up on the Western ideal of self-determination by a sovereign nation; Ukraine isn't allowed to decide for itself with whom it can associate.

"Sorry, Ukraine, your asshole big brother says you can't hang out at our lunch table no matter how much you'd like. We've got each others' backs over here, and we'd normally be cool with it but don't want to deal with the hassle of hurting your dickhead brother's feelings because you're too poor and unimportant. If his insecure ass says you can't, then we're just going to call him a cocksucker and let it be."

"Eat your spinach, get your shit together, and maybe you'll be strong enough someday. In the meantime, we're just going to do some flexing over here to make sure he only fucks with you and not us. By the way, here's a spoon or two you can use to defend yourself if he decides to wail on you for even thinking about leaving your abusive and dysfunctional family. We're rooting for you."

That's essentially what's going on.

[OrangEngr 1035]

The cut shot to Putin during Ukraine’s entrance to the olympics better be a meme all over the internet tomorrow

[956 Worldwide 34705]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

How about just releasing the confidence level assessments by each of the components of the IC?  Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

Do you want confidence level assessments that a plan exists and has been discussed? Or do you want the level of likelihood that it will happen, which are two different things in the IC. (And the latter changed after publicizing). When you say each of the components of the IC, you want Coast Guard and Department of Energy Intelligence to weigh in? 
 

FYSA, Russia has released manipulated video before (at a U.S. target). But yeah, this and Alex Jones’ theories about a school shooting in Connecticut are totally the same sort of thing. 
 

Edited February 5, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

[956 Worldwide 34705]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It is in NATO's interest.  If Russia invades Ukraine, it justifies NATO's existence, justifies the decisions of those in Eastern Europe who joined NATO, it makes Sweden and particularly Finland start to think about ramping up their "cooperation" with NATO (if not outright join), and it probably causes everybody in NATO to start ramping up their military spending/training.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on Putin's part. Which makes me wonder if invading Ukraine is worth it for Putin.  He questions NATO's relevance/existence over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, then does something that justifies NATO's existence, and pushes additional countries closer into NATO's orbit.  Doesn't seem very bright.

I don’t think any NATO nation wants an invasion to happen.  There’s no 3D chess game going on where we’re telling the Russians loudly to knock it the fuck off and are publicizing the ways they might try justify it, but secretly we want them to do it because Raytheon is a thing. Hell, to one constant from Biden had been “we will not send troops to Ukraine.”
 

And there hasn’t really been a lot of desire to bring Sweden and Finland into the fold. Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. doesn’t really need them anyway. Finland just signed a contract for F-35s.  Bringing in Sweden would HURT U.S. industry. Sweden has a robust defense sector, a consequence of its neutrality, and already competes on the EU market, with Saab Gripens the most visible, but also ground and maritime systems. (Finland has a smaller sector, but Sweden really is a player). Making them an Ally, and in the EU, would just make them more competitive. 

Everyone in NATO actually does want Russia to chill the fuck out and let Ukraine alone, where you have differences is how best to accomplish that (appeasement) or deterrence by boosting Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself and the threat of economic and other consequences. 
 

This go-round, the appeasement theory has wormed its way into a particular political segment in the United States (I chose the word worm carefully).  Because they are constitutionally incapable of making intellectually honest arguments, they won’t just say “appeasing Russia is good and cool.” Instead, they have falsely framed the argument by claiming the deterrence and consequences camp wants war. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

One piece that’s been mostly ignored is the potential for a refugee crisis in Europe that makes Bosnia look like a day-camp outing.  Many of the countries likely to absorb them are in the East, are small, and don’t have the infrastructure in place to do it.

And Americans often don’t realize what a massive, long-term impact the Yugoslavia refugee wave made in Europe.  None of those nations wants a repeat, and certainly not at a larger scale. 
 

For that matter, brushing up on Bosnia will give an insight into U.S. thinking on European effectiveness and ability to resolve a crisis. Remember that this is a generation of foreign policy leaders that came up right as Bosnia happened or right after and they cut their teeth in an establishment where Holbrooke was the gold standard.  And the lesson they drew from Bosnia was that European will happily accept promises they know will be broken and proclaim peace in our time, even to their own detriment. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL when he told him that they were operating in "Alex Jones territory".

Also LOL at Spox @ 4:45: "If you doubt the credibility of the US government....and want to find solace and information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do". 

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

 Good to see a reporter covering this report press them on past failures, evidence, and inconsistencies.

 

Here's another from the same reporter:

 

 

Let me make a helpful analogy:

Cops: “A known sex offender with a history of violence to minors and indecent exposure has been seen around this sports center.  Here’s his photo, call us if you see him and tell him to scram if he shows up to watch soccer practice. He’s not supposed to be here.”

Normal people: “Ok, thanks for the heads up.”

Brainworms: “Wait, didn’t you say that it was crazy last year when we thought Hilary Clinton had a kiddie sex dungeon in a pizza parlor? Now you’re asking me to BELIEVE in sex offenders? What is your confidence level, have you actually seen him unzipping his pants at the soccer field? Also, you arrested the wrong guy after the jewelry store robbery 12 years ago, so how can we ever believe you now?”

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

I don’t understand the comparison that some reporter makes between Alex Jones and the State dept.  I don’t recall Alex Jones breaking the story of an upcoming false flag operation with a school shooting. He finds real events and then stirs up the conspiracy crowd to sell products. Both use the same terms but in different context.

it’s possible that the govt is releasing questionable evidence or even conjecture with the false flag ops stories about Russia. But it’s in support to predict how Putin could attempt to sell an invasion to the world. He would look foolish even to his own citizens if he uses the same playbook that the US announces a week earlier.

[Gourmand 7774]

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Do you want confidence level assessments that a plan exists and has been discussed? Or do you want the level of likelihood that it will happen, which are two different things in the IC. (And the latter changed after publicizing). When you say each of the components of the IC, you want Coast Guard and Department of Energy Intelligence to weigh in? 
 

FYSA, Russia has released manipulated video before (at a U.S. target). But yeah, this and Alex Jones’ theories about a school shooting in Connecticut are totally the same sort of thing. 
 

IMO for all the attention this exchange received online from US gov't skeptics on both the right and the left, it is overblown and misses the point that what is being declassified here is not actionable intelligence. It's not something the US is going to use as a justification to send troops to Ukraine or escalate conflict with Russia. All that's happening is the US is preempting Putin by letting the world know that their intelligence suggests the Russians will use blatant propaganda tactics as a casus belli for invading Ukraine. The exchange went viral because of the aggressiveness of Matt Lee and the defensiveness of Ned Price, and both were equally wrong. Price kinda buried the lede in that briefing by not emphasizing the reasons he could not provide more answers and acknowledging skepticism but that it was being made public in the interest of keeping peace. "If you don't want to believe us, fine, but here's what we can tell you..." He crossed the line though by implying Lee was being too sympathetic to Russia by questioning him aggressively.

 

[Anastasis 23469]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Let me make a helpful analogy:

Cops: “A known sex offender with a history of violence to minors and indecent exposure has been seen around this sports center.  Here’s his photo, call us if you see him and tell him to scram if he shows up to watch soccer practice. He’s not supposed to be here.”

Normal people: “Ok, thanks for the heads up.”

Brainworms: “Wait, didn’t you say that it was crazy last year when we thought Hilary Clinton had a kiddie sex dungeon in a pizza parlor? Now you’re asking me to BELIEVE in sex offenders? What is your confidence level, have you actually seen him unzipping his pants at the soccer field? Also, you arrested the wrong guy after the jewelry store robbery 12 years ago, so how can we ever believe you now?”

 

The analogy would be better and more accurate maybe if it made explicit that the cops were a gang of registered sex offenders.   

[Anastasis 23469]

11 hours ago, bolverk said:

We'd be giving up on the Western ideal of self-determination by a sovereign nation

Long the cornerstone of American foreign policy. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think any NATO nation wants an invasion to happen.  There’s no 3D chess game going on where we’re telling the Russians loudly to knock it the fuck off and are publicizing the ways they might try justify it, but secretly we want them to do it because Raytheon is a thing. Hell, to one constant from Biden had been “we will not send troops to Ukraine.”

I didn't mean to imply NATO wanted it to happen, just saying that Putin is helping justify its existence and pushing some folks off of the fence.  He says it's not relevant, then invades a neighbor, making it relevant.

[InkaUtexas 25906]

11 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One piece that’s been mostly ignored is the potential for a refugee crisis in Europe that makes Bosnia look like a day-camp outing.  Many of the countries likely to absorb them are in the East, are small, and don’t have the infrastructure in place to do it.

And Americans often don’t realize what a massive, long-term impact the Yugoslavia refugee wave made in Europe.  None of those nations wants a repeat, and certainly not at a larger scale. 
 

For that matter, brushing up on Bosnia will give an insight into U.S. thinking on European effectiveness and ability to resolve a crisis. Remember that this is a generation of foreign policy leaders that came up right as Bosnia happened or right after and they cut their teeth in an establishment where Holbrooke was the gold standard.  And the lesson they drew from Bosnia was that European will happily accept promises they know will be broken and proclaim peace in our time, even to their own detriment. 

Not everyone is overlooking it. Work with a group that handles refugee issues across the Med. They are pivoting resources to focus on Eastern Europe right now. Companies are starting to move people out. They have identified locations across the region to build quick camps. Have a call on Monday with their team lead. They are quite nervous and for some reason think the 10th is the day. 

I was in Bosnia (1995-1998) and yeah, it was bad. Worse crisis I saw concerning refugees was when Austria decided to send them all back in 1996 and there was no where to put them in the country. It was a major issue. Was back in Germany in 2008 and the hotel we were in was still staffed by Bosnians. Damn I would kick an aggy for some slivovic right now.

[Hook1997 5354]

US intelligence says they believe Russian troops will move in to Ukraine in the next few days according to a news alert I got. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

US intelligence says they believe Russian troops will move in to Ukraine in the next few days according to a news alert I got. 

If they want to avoid the mud in late March and get their Lebensraum they have to invade soon. 

Ukraine hasn't done shit to Russia, even after Russia peeled off a part of Ukraine a while back. So of course Russia is going to invade Ukraine.  

Because it's 2022 and Russia said they wouldn't invade.

 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

Purveyor of dairy desserts decided to talk geopolitics, does not do it right.

 

[South Austin 52463]

I knew Ben and Jerry were commies!

[Enchubben 5510]

From the comments lol:

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

49 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I knew Ben and Jerry were commies!

They try to sap our precious bodily fluids thru ice cream.... Rocky Road as well as Appease Mint if I'm not mistaken....

Edited February 6, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

[956 Worldwide 34705]

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-vows-for-de-escalation-and-dialogue-ahead-of-russian-trip-putin-ukraine/
 

It sure looks like Macron is getting out over his skis here.  It is almost always a mistake to promise breakthroughs with Putin ahead of time, he takes almost a perverse glee in humiliating leaders who come to court him. The skeptic in me says that he is going to accept almost anything Putin offers, knowing full well it won’t be accepted either across the EU or within NATO— and then it provides France and Germany an out to blame obstreperous Eastern Europe and America who won’t take a deal.

I think it’s a strategic error to use this to try and advance the common EU foreign policy cause and federalization. The states he’s likely to piss off the most also happen to be home to the most EU skeptic populations and leaders.