Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Shady Ray 1633]

55 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m just a message board asshole but my read is that Putin has staked out some maximalist demands publicly and is facing the choice of not getting his demands met and backing down, or not getting them met and putting a hurt on Ukraine a la Kramer.  I also think that Putin has determined that a Western leaning, non-vassal Kyiv is a core security threat.  To completely avoid any more Russian invasion, including the minimalist “peacekeepers to Donbas” scenario, I think Putin wants:

- Immediate implementation of Minsk as Russia/LPR/DPR interprets Minsk.

- A halt to all meaningful western support to Kyiv including removing Western arms that have been donated and a halt to any financial support.

These two would mean the fall of Zelenskyy and installation of a puppet in short order. Russia would demand the West stay out as broad suppression of dissent is carried out. Basically- not the Finlandization of Ukraine but the Belarusization. 

One thing that I can't wrap my mind around though is how he could actually believe that a puppet could be installed. To be clear, I agree with you that he does view this as a possible option eventually, so what I am trying to say is that I can't understand how he believes that.

 

It just seems so far-fetched to actually implement. Outside of certain pockets in the East, the anti-Russian sentiment galvanized so significantly post-2014, and the place is so awash in weapons of all types, that it would be almost impossible to hold. And on top of that, what security apparatus is he expecting a Kremlin-installed puppet be able to leverage to keep power? Relying on Russian troops to maintain order in the city would be a bloodbath for them. Pulling that in Kiev could make Grozny look like a day at the park for those trying to hold it against the will of the population. So how would he approach that? Surely he can’t think that he can turn the existing Ukrainian security apparatus in his favor. And his pro-Russian elements in the East couldn't just be picked up and moved to Kiev to form some State Security Service, so he couldn’t rely on using them.

 

So the only way he could do that is exactly as you suggested: by brutal and deep suppression of dissent beforehand, which would mean that he truly has decided to completely abandon any attempt to remain connected economically to Europe, as that would eliminate the ability for fence-sitters in western europe to remain sidelined to any degree. But that level of violent suppression would start to resemble genocide given how many would be rounded up/killed, which would be seen as a completely different thing than just carnage in the Donbass/East. He would essentially be making a decision that Europe is completely written off as the more pacifist countries could no longer push for any type of compromise. This self-inflicted complete-and-total break with Europe would then put him completely dependent on Beijing, which Russia has never wanted, but would now be their only hope. If he tries to pull this, IMO it would truly be one of the worst geo-political plays of all time.

[956 Worldwide 34715]

52 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

One thing that I can't wrap my mind around though is how he could actually believe that a puppet could be installed. To be clear, I agree with you that he does view this as a possible option eventually, so what I am trying to say is that I can't understand how he believes that.

 

It just seems so far-fetched to actually implement. Outside of certain pockets in the East, the anti-Russian sentiment galvanized so significantly post-2014, and the place is so awash in weapons of all types, that it would be almost impossible to hold. And on top of that, what security apparatus is he expecting a Kremlin-installed puppet be able to leverage to keep power? Relying on Russian troops to maintain order in the city would be a bloodbath for them. Pulling that in Kiev could make Grozny look like a day at the park for those trying to hold it against the will of the population. So how would he approach that? Surely he can’t think that he can turn the existing Ukrainian security apparatus in his favor. And his pro-Russian elements in the East couldn't just be picked up and moved to Kiev to form some State Security Service, so he couldn’t rely on using them.

 

So the only way he could do that is exactly as you suggested: by brutal and deep suppression of dissent beforehand, which would mean that he truly has decided to completely abandon any attempt to remain connected economically to Europe, as that would eliminate the ability for fence-sitters in western europe to remain sidelined to any degree. But that level of violent suppression would start to resemble genocide given how many would be rounded up/killed, which would be seen as a completely different thing than just carnage in the Donbass/East. He would essentially be making a decision that Europe is completely written off as the more pacifist countries could no longer push for any type of compromise. This self-inflicted complete-and-total break with Europe would then put him completely dependent on Beijing, which Russia has never wanted, but would now be their only hope. If he tries to pull this, IMO it would truly be one of the worst geo-political plays of all time.

I think the break has been decided upon. There would probably be mass arrests but more than that an encouragement to leave the country for anyone who wasn’t willing to get on board with the new political order. And likely some form of formal Russian presence on the ground. Shades of Czechoslovakia in 1968 complete with pleas from political leadership not to resist “for the sake of peace.” And there’d be a time gap to allow for some sort of pretend democratic process to be implemented to get someone else in place. Putin would view it as fair play for what happened to Yanukovych. 

Today the Belarus defense minister announced that drills will continue indefinitely due to tensions in Donbas.  I think it’s fair to assess whether Belarus is a sovereign country anymore. It’s worth noting that Lukashenka had made serious overtures to the West after 2014 made him ask if he could trust Russia. Only mass, genuine democratic protests made him flee back to Putin as the only man that really got him.  There are now 30,000 some odd Russian troops and heavy metal in Belarus that aren’t going anywhere. Lukashenka’s presence at Grom drills was not necessarily a sign of trust and respect. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Probably going to have some sort of total blackout soon.

The z is probably an IFF designation.  Pretty low tech but useful.

Yeah.  That has been a huge problem with our intelligence.  Electronic eavesdropping and such hubris that we don't think HUMInt is needed anymore.  

 

 

 

 

As some of the OSINT geeks I follow have pointed out, the “Z” markers are kind of haphazard and look like what you’d get if you told soldiers “paint a Z” without more context.  Could be as simple as “this vehicle has been prepped and inspected and is ready to go/operational.”

Also images of tanks with slat armor (not fitted for drills- fitted if you expect to be fired on) and units breaking down into smaller groups under forest cover, closer to the border. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

 

Also images of tanks with slat armor (not fitted for drills- fitted if you expect to be fired on) and units breaking down into smaller groups under forest cover, closer to the border. 

Significant.

 

[Shady Ray 1633]

4 hours ago, TejanoAtUT said:

 Once again, thanks for all the great info and insight you, Shady Ray, and several others have shared on this thread.

As y'all have mentioned a few times up-thread, as if on queue, Russian military activity & propaganda seems to be ramping up just as the Winter Olympics are winding down. A few weeks ago it felt like there might be a chance Putin might  be bluffing with the threat of military action to force some sort of concession or diplomatic agreement from Ukraine and Western governments. But now, I can't help but feel like Putin and Russia are more akin to a hurricane churning in the Gulf on a path to landfall, rather than an entity that can be reasoned with through diplomacy.

Personal feelings aside, what diplomatic options are realistically left on the table? It seems like everyone's positions are well staked out and no one is going to budge now.

Just spitballing here…but I think it depends. If, as Mr. Worldwide (/NoPitBull) and I were discussing, Putin has indeed made the decision to make a complete break with Europe, then it is all over but the invadin'.

If he doesn’t see the break as inevitable yet, then I think at this point Putin sees the diplomatic and military paths as now intertwined, and no longer parallel tracks, or “either/or”.  So, while yes, the diplomatic paths forward definitely appear to be at a dead end, does that change if the Russians cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea, rendering it a rump, landlocked Ukriaine? Does that change if Russia has decimated the country East of the Dnieper and has some type (even if tenuous) control over that half of Ukraine? Does it change if the Russians implement a siege of Kiev? Does it change if incorporates large swathes of SE Ukrainian Russian-speaking territory into Russia? There are many possibilities for the diplomatic positions to change given events on the ground, and I think Putin could calculate that Western Europe will be so terrified by a demonstration of overwhelming Russian force/control, that they’ll be prone to cut a deal formalizing the neutrality of Ukraine in exchange for his return of the areas seized, which would of course be made with certain strategic gains remaining with him (thinking specifically of carve outs to benefit the Crimean infrastructure problems that he currently has, de jure autonomy for the Donbas, etc). And let’s not kid ourselves…he isn’t crazy for viewing certain Europeans as pussies, because, as we all know, certain ones, ahem *looking out of my window*, are.
 

So, I think you are correct in your view that (for now), diplomatic options are at least in a holding pattern (or, alternatively, dead entirely, if the break has been decided by Putin). But if not, he could have an idea to potentially escalate to some degree, seize certain areas, and pause to allow for diplomatic off ramps/concessions to be made. If no progress, escalate again, seize more territory/inflict more damage, pause to allow for diplomatic off ramps/concessions. And this could eventually get to a point where even if Ukraine holds firm, external parties could resort to bearing down on Ukraine itself to accept things that they don't want to accept, or, alternatively, offering Kiev a huge carrot to cut a deal (a fixed date, albeit far down the road, for EU accession along with regular cash money in exchange for dropping NATO bid and a commitment to formalized neutrality?...again, haven't thought that through so just thinking out loud). There is a precedent for that when you look at how Minsk 2 came to be, albeit as a miniature version of what any future arrangement would be. The Ukrainian military was losing territory to the separatists (along with the Russian little green men) and were in fact on the verge of being trapped in a huge cauldron at Debaltseve, which ultimately did happen in the days immediately following Minsk 2, until they were allowed to retreat in humiliation by the rebels.
 

The difference would be that this time, any concession would be expected to be formalized with robust mechanisms in place to ensure compliance, and in Putin’s mind he would hang this hope on being able to leverage the Europeans to provide political cover for a deal that he found worthwhile. The Russians took Minsk 2 to the UN Security Council, where it was adopted, but after that enforcement on both sides of the aisle was largely impossible due to the weakness of the Germans and French to come up with any leverage points over the process. In my view, this type of deal would be impossible to get if he was dealing with the US alone (or at least with a united West, which it currently is not), as Americans don't have it in them to cut deals at the barrel of a gun...but certain Europeans do. And they tend to have a lot of influence and if Europe got in its head to do this to avoid war spilling over and coax the Ukrainians to go along, it could theoretically happen.

 

As an aside, one thing that went largely unnoticed in the English speaking press (and to a large degree the German speaking press, as well) was that Baerbock may have made a strategic error in her Q&A at the Security Conference on Friday. She specifically said in response to a journalist’s question, “Western allies have prepared sanctions packages for all types of different attack scenarios. We know where the different trigger points are and which ones would then be imposed.” Now, I don’t follow the US media nearly to the degree that I follow German media, but I don’t recall here that “incrementalist approach” being publicly discussed before (but I could be wrong). I thought the whole debate playing out in public was, “Invasion = Maximum Sanctions”. To me, what Baerbock said sounds like a compromise between the Germans and the US to put NS2 on the line, but only at a certain level of aggression…so basically this could be an inadvertent invitation to dip a toe in and see how bad things are at the outset. 
 

So, if Putin hasn’t decided to make a full break with Europe, then I think he will not negotiate until after at least an initial display of force with corresponding gains. I think that would be an initial overwhelming destruction of the Ukrainian military on the front lines at the Donbass to show he means business. He could do a ton towards that goal from that vicinity without having to send tanks, which for some reason from a language standpoint has been the indicator of “invasion”.
 

Of course, if he has decided to break, then my entire post is just bullshit. And if he hasn’t, it could still be bullshit.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Shady Ray

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Also, while we are discoursing, I want to pause and mention how disgusting it is that Russia is herding thousands of Donbas civilians into tents as part of a propaganda effort to create a “Ukrainian invasion threat” that in no way exists. It really is an absolutely criminal exploitation of non-combatants. 
 

Even if by some miracle the kinetic part of this gets waved off, if you’re a person who was rolling your eyes at Western warnings of false flags and provocations— you can have a fucking seat. It’s all almost exactly as warned and it’s absolutely trash behavior. Another reason not to buy the “they’re both the same.” 
 

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Something interesting from Maria Zacharova, Putin’s leggy and sassy foreign affairs spokesperson.  After German chancellor Scholz lambasted claims of a genocide in Donbas, she says that Russia is sending evidence of mass graves to his office and that “Washington” already has it. She also claims that “publishing this would not be allowed on any platform” and that “even those who have seen everything will not be able to look at this.”

Translation : You fuckers already called this out and now we can’t use it, so we’ll just say we have it.

 

 

[Bevo 13577]

48 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

So the only way he could do that is exactly as you suggested: by brutal and deep suppression of dissent beforehand, which would mean that he truly has decided to completely abandon any attempt to remain connected economically to Europe, as that would eliminate the ability for fence-sitters in western europe to remain sidelined to any degree.

 

-----

 

Just spitballing here…but I think it depends. If, as Mr. Worldwide (/NoPitBull) and I were discussing, Putin has indeed made the decision to make a complete break with Europe, then it is all over but the invadin'.

Germany is a little like a whore in this instance. It will most definitely continue to buy oil and gas from Russia. They know it is wrong but they need the juice. So, does the takeover of the Ukraine really complete the break from Europe? The only asset Russia has worth purchasing is oil and gas.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Bevo

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

20 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Germany is a little like a whore in this instance. It will most definitely continue to buy oil and gas from Russia. They know it is wrong but they need the juice. So, does the takeover of the Ukraine really complete the break from Europe? The only asset Russia has worth purchasing is oil and gas.

Uhhh. Vodka......stumbles up, and says privet.....

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

Mail order brides too

[Shady Ray 1633]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Germany is a little like a the whore of whores, supreme in all her whorishness, the apple of the Great Whore in the Sky's eye in this instance general. It will most definitely continue to buy oil and gas from Russia. They know it is wrong but they need the juice. So, does the takeover of the Ukraine really complete the break from Europe? The only asset Russia has worth purchasing is oil and gas.

I take umbrage at your selling of this fair land short, so I fixed it for you.

 

Commentators on the big political show last night said that power blackouts could bring societal destabilization, in which case, the Germans would likely have to continue to buy. But God almighty, the wholesale invasion of occupation of Ukraine by the Russians would make it really, really tough...I think we would be in some type of uncharted territory there.

 

Caspian Report released a great 15 min video on this yesterday. In it he describes that even if Germany WANTED to stop buying, it basically can't. He explains why there are no alternatives that can work at present. Goes into the lack of infrastructure for LNG and the impact it would have on manufacturing, which is what Germany "does". Talks about the political instability that will occur without Russian gas. The video is definitely worth watching in light of current events.

 

 

Worth noting that the new polls came out today, and the Greens and the SPD continue to slide, with the Center-Right CDU opposition increasing their lead. So that means that the current governing coalition of SPD, Greens and FDP is now underwater for the first time in their short history, which means if the polls are right, and elections were held today, the three governing parties could not assemble a governming coalition and the party of German industry would as a matter of math be required to join as the senior governing party. The CDU talks a transatlantic game, but they are the party of the big multinationals. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Siap but I was at a party yesterday and one guy has a son in the 101st airborne in Kentucky. He said they were just in the past day or two they were issued ceramics for their body armor and they received 5 howitzers. Hope I’m stating that correctly. The dad was a marine and said that basically means their deployment is imminent. 
 

On another note, I don’t track this stuff as closely obviously as y’all but are attempts at diplomacy always this contradictory. It was a day or two ago that Zelensky reiterated they want to get into NATO asap. And today this comes across my Twitter feed. 
 

 

[Bevo 13577]

29 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

I take umbrage at your selling of this fair land short, so I fixed it for you.

LOL, I tempered my comments because I didn't want to offend you.

[Shady Ray 1633]

Der Spiegel, the most mainstream of German print outlets pushed out a widely-circulated article supporting Russian claims re NATO expansion yesterday titled “New File Found from 1991 Supports Russian Claims”, citing a recently-discovered memo from the British Archives in which German diplomat/ambassador to the US, Jürgen Chrobog, stated that the Soviets were promised no NATO expansion beyond Germany by the US/Brits/France/UK in the two-plus-four format in the early 90s. The article also cites former US diplomat/ex-Asst Sec State for Europe in the early 90s, Raymond Seitz, as saying the same. Prior to the release of the memo, Spiegel also ran two prior articles over past week giving tacit support that Russia’s claim that the West had lied re NATO expansion is - at the very least - a reasonable claim with supporting evidence; specifically saying that the disagreement between the west and Russia re promises for no NATO expansion “is complicated”, which directly contradicts the western position that it is pure Russian propaganda without any validity.

Now, this is of course interesting for all of us history nerds, as it adds to the existing archive on this subject, but it doesn’t change the fact that ultimately no formalized agreement was made with the Soviets, so no treaty obligations were broken, thus rendering it an irrelevant point at the end of the day. But it is very significant in the context of current German positioning on this, particularly as no context was provided in the articles demonstrating how this could be contextualized differently.
 

And it is significant that this came out of Der Spiegel, which is THE big boy in German print media. It is the most widely-read current events magazine in Europe and it carries a tremendous amount of weight in Germany…far more than any other publication. And since half of Germans don’t viscerally hate a given media source as a matter of practice, as is the case in the hyper-partisan US, Spiegel matters quite a bit and it won’t be designated to be “Fake News!” by anyone. But most importantly, Der Spiegel has been identified for years as the publication that forms public opinion in Germany more than any other. From a journalistic standpoint in Germany, you couldn’t get any higher profile. The article was then picked up by other large national publications, including Focus and Die Welt, essentially covering the largest read non-tabloid publications in the country and ensuring widespread distribution.

In my mind, this could be significant (and I stress could) from a German standpoint. It could just be happenstance in the sense that this memo just happened to be discovered at the time that this issue is front and center. And that’s a valid position. But given the way it has been covered, this very well could indicate that certain corners of the German establishment are trying to prepare the ground for the German people to not only accept, but to actively seek, a firm exclusion of Ukraine from NATO in exchange for some type of deal. 


But most importantly, it injects a massive degree of “both sides have reasonable claims” into the public discourse here. It can be used to justify domestically Germany’s continued non-alignment on Ukraine and will also provide a huge fig leaf to certain Russian actions under the guise of “they have a valid grievance”…at least up until actual invasion/occupation, at which point we are off to God-knows-where.  

But if you are preparing to take an avalanche of external PR heat by not including the killing of NS2 unless only the most blatant and expansive form of “invasion and occupation” occurs, this is how you would begin to inoculate yourself as a politician in the eyes of the the electorate, which is ultimately what will be the difference between the end of your political career and continued power. Now to be clear, I am not saying this is the case…Germany could announce as soon as a Russian invasion occurred that NS2 is done. Hell, if I knew for sure I wouldn't be sitting her on a cloudy cold Munich day when the Canary Islands are not too short of a flight away. And this is juicy content and it very well may be just designed for maximum readership. But I am saying is that it could be more to it, as this development is way too convenient for the current German domestic position at the moment. 
 


The most significant element of the coverage IMO is found in the German language used to describe it: “Wie die Dokument belegt, stimmten Briten, Amerikaner, Deutsche und Franzosen jedoch überein, dass eine Nato-Mitgliedschaft der Osteuropäer inakzeptabel sei.”…”What the document proves (or "attests") is that the British, Americans, Germans and French agreed that NATO membership of Eastern Europeans was “unacceptable”.

 

Either way, this is mainstream German press taking a very hostile position to the US interpretation of what is a fundamental grievance of Putin, so it is notable in that regard.
 

On an another topic, one of the best German political analysts did a deep discussion with the Deutsche Welle last night on the sidelines of the Security Conference where she talked about the internal German tensions right now. She made an interesting statement that I think is worth sharing regarding what is going on here right now, as it really does boil things down to a simple concept: “Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, and Chinese markets…that is unsustainable and something is going to have to give. And at this point, no one knows which it will eventually be.” 
 

Anyway, full articles from Spiegel and Die Welt below. And notice the singling out of NATO chief Stoltenberg from the jump...that is not the tone that Der Spiegel typically takes towards transatlantic institutions. And I have probably distracted with too much German shit today when the real issue is Russia and Ukraine, so I will leave it at that...but there is a lot going on in the legacy German-language media that just isn't making it over into the English language press at the moment, so I thought I would pass it along. And it is stuff that impacts the Ukraine situation on the Continental side.

 

Quote

 

"We cannot offer Poland and the others NATO membership"

New file found from 1991 supports Russian claims

Russia has been claiming for decades that NATO's eastward enlargement violates Western promises after the fall of the Wall. Now a remarkable document has appeared.
By Klaus Wiegrefe
02/18/2022, 1 p.m. • from DER SPIEGEL 8/2022

 


A few weeks ago, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appeared overconfident. Asked by SPIEGEL whether Russia had been promised in the 1990s that it would not expand NATO to the east, the Norwegian stated firmly: "That is simply not true, no such promise was ever made, there was never such a backroom deal. That is simply false."
 

Really?
 

Like Stoltenberg, many politicians, military officers or journalists in the West see it this way. They say that the admission of Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries to NATO does not contradict agreements made with Moscow after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. After all, it is understandable. At every suitable opportunity, Russian President Vladimir Putin complains that the West has betrayed his country with NATO's eastward expansion. Who wants to be accused of supporting Putin's propaganda?

 


(image is from the Spiegel article)

And yet the version of Stoltenberg and others is questionable. This is evidenced by a note from the British National Archives. The US political scientist Joshua Shifrinson has discovered the document originally classified as secret. It is about a meeting of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany in Bonn on the 6th. March 1991.

 

The topic was the security of Poland and other Eastern European states. German unity was just over five months old, an end to the Warsaw Pact - the Soviet Empire - was foreseeable. Politicians in Warsaw or Budapest have been signaling their interest in the Western alliance for months. However, as the document proves, the British, Americans, Germans and French agreed that NATO membership of Eastern Europeans was "unacceptable."
 


What is remarkable about this is the reasoning. Bonn's representative Jürgen Chrobog stated, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the two-plus-four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others." In the two-plus-four negotiations, the Federal Republic and the GDR had negotiated German unity with the victorious powers of World War II, the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and France (read the history of the negotiations here).
 

Since 1993 - long before Putin's regime - the Russians have been claiming that an expansion of NATO to the east would violate the spirit of this two-plus-four treaty. This was evidently Chrobog's view as well. According to the note, the Russian complaint coincides with the official position of the German government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU) and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher (FDP) in 1991.
 

And the Americans, too, probably saw the situation in 1991 as Putin does today. U.S. representative Raymond Seitz, according to the memo, agreed with Chrobog, saying, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at two-plus-four as well as other talks - that we will not take advantage of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe.... NATO is not to expand eastward, either formally or informally."
 

The new archival find fits with a wealth of documents now available from the months after the fall of the Wall. However, the West did not reach a binding agreement with the Kremlin under international law that precluded Nato expansion eastward. Rather, in 1990, many politicians and officials involved on both sides acted in good faith.
 


The then Kremlin ruler Mikhail Gorbachev promised to introduce democracy, to respect human rights, to respect the peoples' right to self-determination; Gorbachev even floated the idea that the Soviet Union could join NATO. The empire in the East seemed capable of reform. And so Kohl, Genscher and other Western politicians really wanted to change NATO, to shape it into a political alliance and take the Kremlin's interests seriously. It was never supposed to come to a conflict over Nato's eastward expansion.

 

A marginal aspect of the new document is far less important and yet amusing: Bonn's representative Chrobog apparently confused the Elbe and the Oder in his statement. Of course, contrary to what the diplomat had said in the two-plus-four negotiations, Bonn had never made it clear that it would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. After all, according to the Two-plus-Four Treaty, a united Germany was to join NATO - which extended it to the Oder. 

https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295

 

 

And Die Welt, which is about as mainstream as one can get here, picking up Der Spiegel's reporting:

 

Quote

 

Archival Find Confirms Russian View on NATO Eastward Expansion
02/18/2022


"We have made it clear that we will not extend NATO beyond the Elbe," German diplomat Juergen Chrobog wrote of a March 1991 meeting of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany. This document confirms the Russian view on eastward expansion.

A note from the British National Archives that has only now surfaced supports the Russian claim that the West violated pledges made in 1990 with NATO's eastward expansion. This is reported by "Der Spiegel."
 

U.S. political scientist Joshua Shifrinson found the formerly classified document. It deals with a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the U.S., Britain, France and Germany. The topic was the security of Poland and other Eastern European states. A Political Director heads the Political Division in the State Department and is considered the closest advisor to the Secretary of State.
 

Bonn's representative, Jürgen Chrobog, stated at the time, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others."
 

The British, French and Americans also rejected NATO membership for the Eastern Europeans. U.S. representative Raymond Seitz said, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at Two Plus Four as well as other talks - that we will not take advantage of Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe." Two years later, the Americans adjusted their policy.
 

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236986765/Nato-Osterweiterung-Archivfund-bestaetigt-Sicht-der-Russen.html

 

 

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Something interesting from Maria Zacharova, Putin’s leggy and sassy foreign affairs spokesperson. 

Go on… 

[Shady Ray 1633]

2 minutes ago, JerrysJheriCurl said:

Go on… 

Is it distributing Russian propaganda if I post videos of her leggy-ness dancing the Kalinka? Because she’s definitely got a set of legs.

 

 

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

4 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Is it distributing Russian propaganda if I post videos of her leggy-ness dancing the Kalinka? Because she’s definitely got a set of legs.

 

 

Well done sir. Well done.

Also my favorite song to sing at Mari Vanna. The more vodka I drink, the better I sound. 

[Homercles 10205]

Taken from Reddit:

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Just spitballing here…but I think it depends. If, as Mr. Worldwide (/NoPitBull) and I were discussing, Putin has indeed made the decision to make a complete break with Europe, then it is all over but the invadin'.

If he doesn’t see the break as inevitable yet, then I think at this point Putin sees the diplomatic and military paths as now intertwined, and no longer parallel tracks, or “either/or”.  So, while yes, the diplomatic paths forward definitely appear to be at a dead end, does that change if the Russians cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea, rendering it a rump, landlocked Ukriaine? Does that change if Russia has decimated the country East of the Dnieper and has some type (even if tenuous) control over that half of Ukraine? Does it change if the Russians implement a siege of Kiev? Does it change if incorporates large swathes of SE Ukrainian Russian-speaking territory into Russia? There are many possibilities for the diplomatic positions to change given events on the ground, and I think Putin could calculate that Western Europe will be so terrified by a demonstration of overwhelming Russian force/control, that they’ll be prone to cut a deal formalizing the neutrality of Ukraine in exchange for his return of the areas seized, which would of course be made with certain strategic gains remaining with him (thinking specifically of carve outs to benefit the Crimean infrastructure problems that he currently has, de jure autonomy for the Donbas, etc). And let’s not kid ourselves…he isn’t crazy for viewing certain Europeans as pussies, because, as we all know, certain ones, ahem *looking out of my window*, are.
 

So, I think you are correct in your view that (for now), diplomatic options are at least in a holding pattern (or, alternatively, dead entirely, if the break has been decided by Putin). But if not, he could have an idea to potentially escalate to some degree, seize certain areas, and pause to allow for diplomatic off ramps/concessions to be made. If no progress, escalate again, seize more territory/inflict more damage, pause to allow for diplomatic off ramps/concessions. And this could eventually get to a point where even if Ukraine holds firm, external parties could resort to bearing down on Ukraine itself to accept things that they don't want to accept, or, alternatively, offering Kiev a huge carrot to cut a deal (a fixed date, albeit far down the road, for EU accession along with regular cash money in exchange for dropping NATO bid and a commitment to formalized neutrality?...again, haven't thought that through so just thinking out loud). There is a precedent for that when you look at how Minsk 2 came to be, albeit as a miniature version of what any future arrangement would be. The Ukrainian military was losing territory to the separatists (along with the Russian little green men) and were in fact on the verge of being trapped in a huge cauldron at Debaltseve, which ultimately did happen in the days immediately following Minsk 2, until they were allowed to retreat in humiliation by the rebels.
 

The difference would be that this time, any concession would be expected to be formalized with robust mechanisms in place to ensure compliance, and in Putin’s mind he would hang this hope on being able to leverage the Europeans to provide political cover for a deal that he found worthwhile. The Russians took Minsk 2 to the UN Security Council, where it was adopted, but after that enforcement on both sides of the aisle was largely impossible due to the weakness of the Germans and French to come up with any leverage points over the process. In my view, this type of deal would be impossible to get if he was dealing with the US alone (or at least with a united West, which it currently is not), as Americans don't have it in them to cut deals at the barrel of a gun...but certain Europeans do. And they tend to have a lot of influence and if Europe got in its head to do this to avoid war spilling over and coax the Ukrainians to go along, it could theoretically happen.

 

As an aside, one thing that went largely unnoticed in the English speaking press (and to a large degree the German speaking press, as well) was that Baerbock may have made a strategic error in her Q&A at the Security Conference on Friday. She specifically said in response to a journalist’s question, “Western allies have prepared sanctions packages for all types of different attack scenarios. We know where the different trigger points are and which ones would then be imposed.” Now, I don’t follow the US media nearly to the degree that I follow German media, but I don’t recall here that “incrementalist approach” being publicly discussed before (but I could be wrong). I thought the whole debate playing out in public was, “Invasion = Maximum Sanctions”. To me, what Baerbock said sounds like a compromise between the Germans and the US to put NS2 on the line, but only at a certain level of aggression…so basically this could be an inadvertent invitation to dip a toe in and see how bad things are at the outset. 
 

So, if Putin hasn’t decided to make a full break with Europe, then I think he will not negotiate until after at least an initial display of force with corresponding gains. I think that would be an initial overwhelming destruction of the Ukrainian military on the front lines at the Donbass to show he means business. He could do a ton towards that goal from that vicinity without having to send tanks, which for some reason from a language standpoint has been the indicator of “invasion”.
 

Of course, if he has decided to break, then my entire post is just bullshit. And if he hasn’t, it could still be bullshit.

Re: the Baerbock thing.  It sounds like similar language that Biden got hammered on.  The different response packages are based on other non -kinetic aggressions like cyber attacks that don’t involve troops crossing the border.  The US and NATO have been pretty clear that anything crossing the border = invasion and would result in NS2 being cut off along with all the other big sanctions. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

38 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Der Spiegel, the most mainstream of German print outlets pushed out a widely-circulated article supporting Russian claims re NATO expansion yesterday titled “New File Found from 1991 Supports Russian Claims”, citing a recently-discovered memo from the British Archives in which German diplomat/ambassador to the US, Jürgen Chrobog, stated that the Soviets were promised no NATO expansion beyond Germany by the US/Brits/France/UK in the two-plus-four format in the early 90s. The article also cites former US diplomat/ex-Asst Sec State for Europe in the early 90s, Raymond Seitz, as saying the same. Prior to the release of the memo, Spiegel also ran two prior articles over past week giving tacit support that Russia’s claim that the West had lied re NATO expansion is - at the very least - a reasonable claim with supporting evidence; specifically saying that the disagreement between the west and Russia re promises for no NATO expansion “is complicated”, which directly contradicts the western position that it is pure Russian propaganda without any validity.

Now, this is of course interesting for all of us history nerds, as it adds to the existing archive on this subject, but it doesn’t change the fact that ultimately no formalized agreement was made with the Soviets, so no treaty obligations were broken, thus rendering it an irrelevant point at the end of the day. But it is very significant in the context of current German positioning on this, particularly as no context was provided in the articles demonstrating how this could be contextualized differently.
 

And it is significant that this came out of Der Spiegel, which is THE big boy in German print media. It is the most widely-read current events magazine in Europe and it carries a tremendous amount of weight in Germany…far more than any other publication. And since half of Germans don’t viscerally hate a given media source as a matter of practice, as is the case in the hyper-partisan US, Spiegel matters quite a bit and it won’t be designated to be “Fake News!” by anyone. But most importantly, Der Spiegel has been identified for years as the publication that forms public opinion in Germany more than any other. From a journalistic standpoint in Germany, you couldn’t get any higher profile. The article was then picked up by other large national publications, including Focus and Die Welt, essentially covering the largest read non-tabloid publications in the country and ensuring widespread distribution.

In my mind, this could be significant (and I stress could) from a German standpoint. It could just be happenstance in the sense that this memo just happened to be discovered at the time that this issue is front and center. And that’s a valid position. But given the way it has been covered, this very well could indicate that certain corners of the German establishment are trying to prepare the ground for the German people to not only accept, but to actively seek, a firm exclusion of Ukraine from NATO in exchange for some type of deal. 


But most importantly, it injects a massive degree of “both sides have reasonable claims” into the public discourse here. It can be used to justify domestically Germany’s continued non-alignment on Ukraine and will also provide a huge fig leaf to certain Russian actions under the guise of “they have a valid grievance”…at least up until actual invasion/occupation, at which point we are off to God-knows-where.  

But if you are preparing to take an avalanche of external PR heat by not including the killing of NS2 unless only the most blatant and expansive form of “invasion and occupation” occurs, this is how you would begin to inoculate yourself as a politician in the eyes of the the electorate, which is ultimately what will be the difference between the end of your political career and continued power. Now to be clear, I am not saying this is the case…Germany could announce as soon as a Russian invasion occurred that NS2 is done. Hell, if I knew for sure I wouldn't be sitting her on a cloudy cold Munich day when the Canary Islands are not too short of a flight away. And this is juicy content and it very well may be just designed for maximum readership. But I am saying is that it could be more to it, as this development is way too convenient for the current German domestic position at the moment. 
 


The most significant element of the coverage IMO is found in the German language used to describe it: “Wie die Dokument belegt, stimmten Briten, Amerikaner, Deutsche und Franzosen jedoch überein, dass eine Nato-Mitgliedschaft der Osteuropäer inakzeptabel sei.”…”What the document proves (or "attests") is that the British, Americans, Germans and French agreed that NATO membership of Eastern Europeans was “unacceptable”.

 

Either way, this is mainstream German press taking a very hostile position to the US interpretation of what is a fundamental grievance of Putin, so it is notable in that regard.
 

On an another topic, one of the best German political analysts did a deep discussion with the Deutsche Welle last night on the sidelines of the Security Conference where she talked about the internal German tensions right now. She made an interesting statement that I think is worth sharing regarding what is going on here right now, as it really does boil things down to a simple concept: “Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, and Chinese markets…that is unsustainable and something is going to have to give. And at this point, no one knows which it will eventually be.” 
 

Anyway, full articles from Spiegel and Die Welt below. And notice the singling out of NATO chief Stoltenberg from the jump...that is not the tone that Der Spiegel typically takes towards transatlantic institutions. And I have probably distracted with too much German shit today when the real issue is Russia and Ukraine, so I will leave it at that...but there is a lot going on in the legacy German-language media that just isn't making it over into the English language press at the moment, so I thought I would pass it along. And it is stuff that impacts the Ukraine situation on the Continental side.

 

 

And Die Welt, which is about as mainstream as one can get here, picking up Der Spiegel's reporting:

 

 

If that agreement was made in 1989 after the fall of the Berlin Wall then the German unification would would have been a de facto breach.

[immamac 42852]

I think I've come up with the solution. Germany should take over Russia. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think I've come up with the solution. Germany should take over Russia. 

Can the Bundeswehr pick this Ukrainian lady up on the way? Because she'll fully double its fighting capabilities...

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Shady Ray

[XYZ 2154]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think I've come up with the solution. Germany should take over Russia. 

Alternatively, NATO could tell Putin that it’s not going to add Ukraine and everybody gets to go home.

[Bevo 13577]

58 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

On an another topic, one of the best German political analysts did a deep discussion with the Deutsche Welle last night on the sidelines of the Security Conference where she talked about the internal German tensions right now. She made an interesting statement that I think is worth sharing regarding what is going on here right now, as it really does boil things down to a simple concept: “Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, and Chinese markets…that is unsustainable and something is going to have to give. And at this point, no one knows which it will eventually be.”

That statement should read, "Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, Chinese raw materials and supplies, and Western markets." The way it reads is that the US should lose out but in reality if Germany sells to the US and Europe, it really needs to decrease its reliance on China and Russia. The US isn't much different in this regard, it needs to stop relying on cheap Chinese manufacturing.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Bevo

[Shady Ray 1633]

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Shouldn't that statement read, "Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, Chinese raw materials and supplies, and Western markets." The way it reads is that the US should lose out but in reality if Germany sells to the US and Europe, it really needs to decrease its reliance in China and Russia. The US isn't much different in this regard, it needs to stop relying on cheap Chinese manufacturing.

China is the biggest market for the most important industry in Germany, Automobile Manufacturing. And the car manufacturers competely run the show here.

 

China has become the king for them, even before Covid. But China saved German auto industry after Covid hit, so the dependency has only increased. 

 

And the biggest of them all, VW, also sold a metric fuckton into China last year...almost 4 million cars. It dwarfed any other market.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Shady Ray

[Shady Ray 1633]

8 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

China is the biggest market for the most important industry in Germany, Automobile Manufacturing. And the car manufacturers competely run the show here.

 

China has become the king for them, even before Covid. But China saved German auto industry after Covid hit, so the dependency has only increased. 

 

And the biggest of them all, VW, also sold a metric fuckton into China last year...almost 4 million cars. It dwarfed any other market.

Sorry, included the wrong graph there. 

 

 

And per the VW annual report, it sold 3.8 million units to China, with 575,000 to the US. Mercedes results are similar in percentages to BMW, as is Audi's.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

44 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Alternatively, NATO could tell Putin that it’s not going to add Ukraine and everybody gets to go home.

If that would end it, I'd say sure, but there would need to be assurances of no more Russian aggression towards Ukraine (laughing as I type that Putin riding unicorns, filled fantasy).  It would sorta be the DMZ of Euroland.

[Parliament 14260]

Add the rest of eastern Europe the the unicorn fantasy list.

[FartingMonk 3606]

55 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That statement should read, "Germany is a country that depends on American security, Russian energy, Chinese raw materials and supplies, and Western markets." The way it reads is that the US should lose out but in reality if Germany sells to the US and Europe, it really needs to decrease its reliance on China and Russia. The US isn't much different in this regard, it needs to stop relying on cheap Chinese manufacturing.

Unless you are a private company you are relying on Chinese manufacturing.   Your stakeholders won't allow any less.  In this day and age when it is all about metrics and on demand manufacturing you can't do anything else.  If your stockholders think you don't want to make them money they will stack the board so unless you have 100 percent control of your decisions China is the way to go.  Plus the EPA permits are really expensive and tough to get.  Throw in a couple of NIMBY people and you're bankrupt

[immamac 42852]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

Alternatively, NATO could tell Putin that it’s not going to add Ukraine and everybody gets to go home.

This is hilarious. If it was that simple it would be done. Russia know the jig is up within 10 years and Putin is about to be turbo fucked because Russians aren't gonna put up with his shit anymore if it doesn't get better. Russia (government, not people's) needs to be put out of it's misery, it's been a failed state since I've been alive. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Russia has to do this now because in a few years the threat of cutting off NG to Germany goes away.  Remember Shell has pretty much staked their future in NG especially with western Australia.  Once they get that and LNG ships.  Germany gets all the gas they want 

[immamac 42852]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

Russia has to do this now because in a few years the threat of cutting off NG to Germany goes away.  Remember Shell has pretty much staked their future in NG especially with western Australia.  Once they get that and LNG ships.  Germany gets all the gas they want 

Exactly. This is Russia dying not becoming relevant again. There will be no spoils of war for them even if they are successful in taking the Ukraine. They may actually be rushing to the finale by doing this. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

I wanna see footage of drunk Russian troops

[Humpy 112]

I wanna see footage of drunk Russian sluts.

[Parliament 14260]

There's a PIIHB thread.

[HRSchenker 2268]

Why do people give a fuck about this? I don't remember seeing this much hype and panic over Russia annexing Crimea. Or is this one of those moments where people are actually waking up from their foreign policy deep sleep?

/not concern trolling

[Wally Fairway 5550]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Exactly. This is Russia dying not becoming relevant again. There will be no spoils of war for them even if they are successful in taking the Ukraine. They may actually be rushing to the finale by doing this. 

I'm thinking this is a macho power play, with Vlad showing strength to his Chinese master. Trying to maintain an equal partnership with Xi.

And with this skirmish taking forcers into rotor Europe then China will take over Taiwan. Who gains the most from a Ukraine invasion?

 

[Wally Fairway 5550]

Full disclosure - I may have read to much Patrick Robinson and Brad Thor.

[Eastwood 4394]

Why do people give a fuck about this? I don't remember seeing this much hype and panic over Russia annexing Crimea. Or is this one of those moments where people are actually waking up from their foreign policy deep sleep?
/not concern trolling

I absolutely remember this much hand wringing about Crimea. We didn't get what we needed out of the executive branch, last time. I think this current executive branch remembers that and some of that hindsight is driving the policy of today.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

36 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

57 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Why do people give a fuck about this? I don't remember seeing this much hype and panic over Russia annexing Crimea. Or is this one of those moments where people are actually waking up from their foreign policy deep sleep?
/not concern trolling

I absolutely remember this much hand wringing about Crimea. We didn't get what we needed out of the executive branch, last time. I think this current executive branch remembers that and some of that hindsight is driving the policy of today.

Crimea was much more of a surprise attack than this slow and massive buildup. 

[gmr548 16580]

Crimea was much more of a surprise attack than this slow and massive buildup. 

Yeah Crimea went down in less than a week. The response from the Obama administration at that time definitely can’t be discussed without going full shit flinging, so I’m not taking that bait, but it’s not as comparable as it seems at face value.

[TejanoAtUT 15]

Link

[Shady Ray 1633]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Crimea was much more of a surprise attack than this slow and massive buildup. 

Yeah. And there wasn't much of an military operation required, as the Russians already had a significant military presence on the peninsula due to their base at Sevastopol. What they lacked, they made up by sending in the Special Forces little green men to supplement.

 

They basically just walked in, blended in with the overwhelming Russian-speaking majority, barricaded the Crimean Parliament, barricaded the Isthmus of Perekop, and effectively cut off the peninsula from the Ukrainian mainland. They then just took over the existing Ukrainian military installations and it was done. Only a couple of people died in the whole ordeal.

[FartingMonk 3606]

57 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

Why do people give a fuck about this? I don't remember seeing this much hype and panic over Russia annexing Crimea. Or is this one of those moments where people are actually waking up from their foreign policy deep sleep?
/not concern trolling

I absolutely remember this much hand wringing about Crimea. We didn't get what we needed out of the executive branch, last time. I think this current executive branch remembers that and some of that hindsight is driving the policy of today.

It was a kicking the can moment.  Russia went in did its thing pretty quietly and surgically.  Then when the rest of the world said something.  Russia said well, we keep this parcel and won't do anything else.  Everyone said I guess that's ok.  We are now at the biggest drawup of troops in Europe since WW2.  Russia is posturing like there is no tomorrow.  With all the resources involved it is looking to make a move or just tank billions of dollars being mean.  

Economically, it seems like they are trying to basically beat the US dollar to shit.  They have more or less sold off all US Treasury bonds and go straight into gold and other foreign currency.  They also don't want to deal with US dollars for their oil anymore.  It's a huge move that says they aren't fucking around.  Ukraine itself is just the excuse

[Shady Ray 1633]

In case anyone is interested, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Mission to Ukraine is compiling daily reports of ceasefire violations, complete with a map and statistics, based on what their monitors are seeing. 

 

https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
 

The reports run a day or so behind, but it is showing where the activity is and I imagine it will be at least some type of resource to check in coming days. As resident Surly Jason Bourne aka @InkaUtexas has accurately stated before, OSCE isn't necessarily the most effective intergovernmental org.  

 

Here are the graphics of ceasefire violations and the map of incidents from the 18th.

 

 

 

 

[FartingMonk 3606]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-us-intelligence-orders/

 

Ukraine president has really changed his tone.  Where does the government in exile hang out especially with talks that Putin is going into assassination ops

[Gatorubet 30239]

Link

“ - Have evacuation plans that do not rely on U.S. government assistance.”

[InkaUtexas 25946]

7 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-us-intelligence-orders/

 

Ukraine president has really changed his tone.  Where does the government in exile hang out especially with talks that Putin is going into assassination ops

I would go find a cave in Bolivia. 

LOL @Shady Ray for the reference. That cracked me up. 

So violations continue, hearing from friends about increased air ops. Gonna be interesting next few days. I think I am going to get another beer. 

 

 

[InkaUtexas 25946]

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

“ - Have evacuation plans that do not rely on U.S. government assistance.”

That is usual. People think we fly in 130's all the time when shit goes bad. Nope, get your own ass out of Dodge. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

20 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

That is usual. People think we fly in 130's all the time when shit goes bad. Nope, get your own ass out of Dodge. 

Those are usually the people that are generally the most annoying ones too.  We are Americans they know better than to touch us.  Then it's them pleading on social media that they are tax payers and why they won't come save them.

I've flown on a c130 4 times.  Space A stuff.  It is ungodly hot when you are on the ground waiting to go because their generators don't start until the plane starts.  Then when you are in the air it is insanely cold.  Hawaiian air national guard dudes were pretty cool and shared some hot pockets with me though.  When they first started flying us to Guam it was RyanAir and TWA charters.  Those planes were held together by duct tape.  Then during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan they kept getting diverted there and the Navy found out it was cheaper to just fly us commercial.