Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Gatorubet 29789]

15 hours ago, lucious leftfoot said:

A couple of things here. It looks miserable. How is it still snowing May 9th?

Also, some African dudes sprinkled throughout. Specifically at about 58:00 there's some guy extra bundled up speaking with Putin through translator. Anyone recognize him? Guessing he's a leader of one of the African shitholes they're milking for resources.

Ok the one area they do seem to have us beat at is the soldierettes and their uniforms.

14 hours ago, Nivek said:

No fucking way.  They have whores dressing up as soldiers.  We have women soldiers.    

[Viper 11954]

Russia looks to be up to their same Ukraine playbook in Georgia 

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1788615691509059847.html

 

[atomheartbevo 89054]

Russia hammered Kharkiv last night, and are apparently trying to push 50,000 or so troops in that direction, but their supply vehicles are being taken out by drones, and it’s hard to say how much they’ve managed to move.  

Might explain this

 

[Parliament 14022]

Well that’s awkward.

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89054]

Congrats Elmo, “nudes in profile” is becoming a common response to serious stuff. 
 

NSFW

Spoiler

 

 

[Chad Fuck 17309]

25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Congrats Elmo, “nudes in profile” is becoming a common response to serious stuff. 
 

NSFW

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

What is this about?  Not on twitter.  

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

[Deej 76219]

On 5/9/2024 at 7:41 AM, utee94 said:

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Parliament 14022]

[atomheartbevo 89054]

4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

What is this about?  Not on twitter.  

Women say “nudes in profile” a lot on Twitter, and in their profile is a link to their OnlyFans page or whatever, or a link to a site that redirects you.  Or it just links to spam.  Although it’s probably not women, and just bots.

[Viper 11954]

looks like the Russian attempt at retaking Kharkiv had some limited success.

 

 

[Bevo 13440]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Women say “nudes in profile” a lot on Twitter, and in their profile is a link to their OnlyFans page or whatever, or a link to a site that redirects you.  Or it just links to spam.  Although it’s probably not women, and just bots.

 

Well, if bots take over the world, I think I would prefer if they were nude fembots. Maybe, I would need a ruling from Brisket, but right now my opinion is:

 

Still counts as one.

 

 

[lucious leftfoot 126]

14 minutes ago, Viper said:

looks like the Russian attempt at retaking Kharkiv had some limited success.

 

 

Nudes in profile 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

29 minutes ago, lucious leftfoot said:

Nudes in profile 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Bevo 13440]

18 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

What Does America Want in Ukraine?

Washington’s current approach is a strategic cop-out—and risks making another forever war.

By Emma Ashford, Joshua Shifrinson, and Stephen Wertheim

Joe Biden stands at a lectern and behind it is an American flag and a Ukrainian flag.

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 12, 2023. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now

May 9, 2024, 2:42 PM

Congress has finally approved around $61 billion in new aid to Ukraine, and something strange has happened: Talk of Ukrainian victory has returned to Washington. It’s a jarring turnabout. For the last few months, the White House and others issued dire warnings that if left unaided, Ukrainian lines might collapse and Russian troops might again roll on Kyiv. But with the worst averted, sights are setting higher. The Biden administration is now working to build up the Ukrainian Armed Forces over a 10-year period, at a likely cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, while National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested that Ukraine would mount another counteroffensive in 2025.

Russia’s War in Ukraine

Understanding the conflict two years on.

More on this topic

This optimism is misplaced. The new bill may well represent the last big package that the United States will send to Ukraine. As the geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer noted, “America continuing to send Ukraine [$]60 billion in support year after year [is] unrealistic no matter who wins the presidency.” Current aid will mostly help to put Ukraine in a better position for future negotiations. It will ameliorate shortfalls in ammunition and weaponry, making it less likely that Ukrainian forces will lose more ground in coming months. Yet Ukraine still faces other challenges: insufficient fortifications, a yawning manpower shortage, and a surprisingly resilient Russian army. On the whole, Ukraine remains the weaker party; Western assistance has not altered that reality.

The White House presented the supplemental as an all-or-nothing choice: Approve billions in funding or watch Ukraine go under. Such rhetoric contains eerie echoes of wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan, where the United States kept pouring resources into lost causes at least in part because no U.S. leader wanted to be held responsible at the final moment of failure. Throughout the Ukraine aid debate, key questions were left entirely unanswered: What is the United States trying to achieve in Ukraine given that total victory is not feasible? What is it willing to risk and spend to get there? The supplemental punts these uncomfortable questions down the road. But if Washington doesn’t confront them, it may end up back in the same position next year—or worse.

---

The matter of an endgame in Ukraine has always been fraught. Political scientists have frequently noted that any end to this war will include diplomatic negotiation. Some draw the conclusion that if negotiation is inevitable, talks should begin sooner rather than later. Others argue that Ukraine must improve its battlefield position before negotiating. The government in Kyiv maintains that Russia must be driven completely out of Ukraine, including Crimea, before talks can begin. Some even argue that regime change in Moscow is a precondition for peace.

The squishy middle of the Washington debate, which seems to include senior members of the Biden administration, falls somewhere between these extremes: hoping for major Ukrainian advances, while avoiding escalation and acknowledging privately or anonymously that the math is not in Kyiv’s favor. The White House is correct that aid should be designed to put the Ukrainians in a strong negotiating position. But this raises further questions: How should one determine when the moment for negotiations has arrived? If Ukraine keeps fighting without talking, will its bargaining power improve or diminish?

 

The calculation is also complicated by confusion about what the United States is trying to achieve in Ukraine. Some emphasize broad, universal principles such as defending democracy or protecting the international order. These are laudable goals, but they could plausibly produce opposite conclusions: either that universal principles have already been adequately defended—the steep price Russia has paid could dissuade future aggressors—or alternately that Ukraine must score a definitive victory.

More hard-nosed analysts instead argue that America’s primary goal in arming Ukraine is to bleed Russia. Keeping up the flow of Western weapons, they argue, allows the West to diminish Russia’s military capabilities at a reasonable cost. As an objective, however, weakening Russia offers no endgame, and implies a long-term, semipermanent commitment to war. Given Russia’s ability to reconstitute its forces, it is not even clear the West is succeeding on this front.

A final group offers more concrete goals: enabling Ukraine to retake specific chunks of territory so as to protect its economic viability as a sovereign state, or to prevent Russia from seizing Odesa and other valuable places. But although these are more specific objectives, there is no consensus on them in Western capitals and little willingness to push for peace negotiations once they are achieved.

This is perhaps why White House officials return so often to the formulation that Western aid is simply intended to put Ukraine in the best possible position at the bargaining table. Saying this requires no difficult decisions about the territory Ukraine needs to retake and no consideration of how long Western aid should continue. It also evades the question of Ukraine’s future orientation—will it join the EU or NATO?—which may need to be resolved in order to end the war.

In short, the current approach is a strategic cop-out. Its primary benefit is to paper over differences among Ukraine’s supporters. The risk is that the war will join the ranks of forever wars and end in one of three ways: in defeat, on worse terms than could have been obtained earlier, or on the same terms at a higher human and financial toll.

“Forever war” became a slogan over the past decade-plus, used by activists to describe the seemingly endless American deployments overseas in complex wars from Afghanistan to Syria and Niger. Like all slogans, the term was imprecise, but it crisply conveyed the problem of waging open-ended conflicts aimed at absolute, unachievable victory.

[bolverk 29105]

Thanks for posting, @Bevo. It's a good piece that raises uncomfortable questions, some of which we've touched on in this thread. I'm sure those of us who follow this closely have wrestled internally with some of these thoughts, as well. 

For my part, I think we have to stick to our commitments to support Ukraine as long as they want to keep fighting this war. Ultimately, it's their land and their blood that's on the line, so the final decision on when to come to the negotiating table has to be theirs.

"We" (the US, NATO, EU, and the collective West) have staked our credibility on Ukraine's defense. We've promised to support them as long as they want to fight, and I'm more than happy to pay a couple hundred more in taxes each year to keep our word.

I'm fully invested in their cause and am tired of seeing us abandon our allies. Not only that, but it also helps us (the "West") strategically.

[bolverk 29105]

One of the points made in that piece makes a lot of sense logically: Build up strengths at places that provide strong defensive positions to defend the nationa's viability. Unfortunately, as we all know, the majority of Ukraine is fucking flat (hence the trench lines that have formed), so the one that makes the most sense right now is the Dnieper, but that's far too west for comfort.

If I were them, I'd fight for just about anything west of this line while recognizing Crimea is basically an island fortress that can only be conquered if it's completely cut off.

Anything east of that line should be treated as a loss unless the Russian Army totally collapses.

[Bevo 13440]

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for posting, @Bevo. It's a good piece that raises uncomfortable questions, some of which we've touched on in this thread. I'm sure those of us who follow this closely have wrestled internally with some of these thoughts, as well. 

For my part, I think we have to stick to our commitments to support Ukraine as long as they want to keep fighting this war. Ultimately, it's their land and their blood that's on the line, so the final decision on when to come to the negotiating table has to be theirs.

"We" (the US, NATO, EU, and the collective West) have staked our credibility on Ukraine's defense. We've promised to support them as long as they want to fight, and I'm more than happy to pay a couple hundred more in taxes each year to keep our word.

I'm fully invested in their cause and am tired of seeing us abandon our allies. Not only that, but it also helps us (the "West") strategically.

I don't think that Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most importantly, Ukraine... think like that. Russia seems like it is on the brink of collapse. Bulgaria and Georgia are a mess. And all Russia has is a bunch of dumbasses who are forced to fight. But, I don't think we were ever that comfortable with a Ukraine victory or at least our weapons deployment seemed to indicate a more measured approach than what was necessary for victory.

My question is whether the more vested Eastern European countries can provide enough to Ukraine to allow it to outlast Putin. I don't get the feeling that Eastern Europe is comfortable with Ukraine going quietly into the night. And from the US perspective, it actually puts us closer to a direct conflict with Russia the more Eastern Europe gets involved.

So, give Ukraine what it needs to win and quit pussyfooting around. We love to play politics and implement policies that affect other people's lives and create more restraints than we would ever place on ourselves. We did it here. We did it with Israel. And we have done it with a whole host of countries. And in the process we've help destroy countries and provided opportunities for our enemies.

So, yeah, we are concerned about escalation. We are concerned about securing Russian nuclear weapons if it collapses. We are concerned about oil and gas prices. We are concerned about Russia and a bunch of Russian affiliated countries devolving into civil war. We are concerned about China playing a role in securing Russian assets following a collapse. And all of these concerns lead to indecision and inaction. And a lack of a will to win.

Edited May 11 by Bevo

[bolverk 29105]

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I don't think that Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most importantly, Ukraine... think like that. Russia seems like it is on the brink of collapse. Bulgaria and Georgia are a mess. And all Russia has is a bunch of dumbasses who are forced to fight. But, I don't think we were ever that comfortable with a Ukraine victory or at least our weapons deployment seemed to indicate a more measured approach than what was necessary for victory.

My question is whether the more vested Eastern European countries can provide enough to Ukraine to allow it to outlast Putin. I don't get the feeling that Eastern Europe is comfortable with Ukraine going quietly into the night. And from the US perspective, it actually puts us closer to a direct conflict with Russia the more Eastern Europe gets involved.

So, give Ukraine what it needs to win and quit pussyfooting around. We love to play politics and implement policies that affect other people's lives and create more restraints than we would ever place on ourselves. We did it here. We did it with Israel. And we have done it with a whole host of countries. And in the process we've help destroy countries and provided opportunities for our enemies.

So, yeah, we are concerned about escalation. We are concerned about securing Russian nuclear weapons if it collapses. We are concerned about oil and gas prices. We are concerned about Russia and a bunch of Russian affiliated countries devolving into civil war. We are concerned about China playing a role in securing Russian assets following a collapse. And all of these concerns lead to indecision and inaction.

I don't think my, your, or the Eastern flank's thinking is that far off at all, and I do apologize if I came off as too fatalistic or used too many weasel words (maybe we have a stylistically different means of text-based communication. Or maybe I'm just not clear enough).

When I say we should continue to support them as long as they keep asking, I'm most definitely not saying to keep support to a minimum that only guarantees they keep bleeding until exhaustion. I want to provide them with increased support and want them to win.

That said, I also recognize that most wars end in negotiated settlements instead of unconditional surrender, which will likely be the case in this war. Barring some miracle, I don't think we'll be seeing the Ukrainian army marching on Moscow (as lovely as that might be). And, of course, the mid-to-long game, depending on the time horizon, is Putin croakin'.

Hold or take everything west of the red line on that map above and wait for Putin to die, is what my militarily uneducated mind says is the best play. 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

Edited May 11 by Schulz2.0

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

 

[morehornsepower 855]

As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting, we should support them.  The attemped violent overthrow of a democratic ally should always be opposed - I hate that this is even a matter of debate in this stupid simulation.  My Euro roots are about as far west as you can get and still be in Europe, but I can imagine the...concern...that is happening in many countries there.  Yes, we should have thrown in more support, more quickly.  But, in the ugly world of geopolitics, bleeding Russia is considered a goal just as important as helping Ukraine.  I don't like it, but we all know it's true.  The US elections will certainly have an impact on continued support, but I'm not sure I agree that support will dry up even if Biden wins.

According to that article, "well, since all wars end in negotiation", (duh!), "Ukraine should just negotiate now, regardless of their leverage or lack thereof".  I guess my response to that would be: "Fuck you.  That's Ukraine's decision."

 

sorry for the word vomit.

[RPM 26098]

4 minutes ago, morehornsepower said:

As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting, we should support them.  The attemped violent overthrow of a democratic ally should always be opposed - I hate that this is even a matter of debate in this stupid simulation.

Russia marching into anywhere uninvited should always be met with a big Fuck You.

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

[PTINS 3422]

14 hours ago, Bevo said:

I don't think that Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most importantly, Ukraine... think like that. 

My question;  can the more vested Eastern European countries can provide enough to Ukraine to allow it to outlast Putin. I don't get the feeling that Eastern Europe is comfortable with Ukraine going quietly into the night. 

So, give Ukraine what it needs to win and quit pussyfooting around. We love to play politics and implement policies that affect other people's lives and ... And in the process we've help destroy countries and provided opportunities for our enemies.

So, yeah, we are concerned about escalation. We are concerned about securing Russian nuclear weapons if it collapses. We are concerned about oil and gas prices. We are concerned about Russia and a bunch of Russian affiliated countries devolving into civil war. We are concerned about China playing a role in securing Russian assets following a collapse. And all of these concerns lead to indecision and inaction. And a lack of a will to win.

The Eastern European baby boomers grew up knowing and living through the suffering of their parents and grandparents under Soviet Russia's thumb.

They've seen and prospered under a different life, no way your getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

The EU & NATO recognized that their complacent acceptance of the recent past has put them in a position they don't want to be in. They are increasing defense spending in a manner that they can defend the front lines, in the belief that their allies have their backs, the isolationist behavior of the US be damned.

Now, more than ever, the world economy is interconnected as never before, with the causes and effects manifesting in days and weeks rather than months and years. The longer this drags on, the more Europe is at risk, and the higher the probability for economic shocks, which will ultimately gets the US to open their eyes.

Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons, based on representations by the powers that be. Given the fucked up non-response by the US in 2014, and our on-again off-again mindset, I don't see many countries compromising their nuclear "security" in the future.

Hard to believe that Russia and China would jeopardize their piece of a multi $ Trillion world economy over a few trinkets, but here we are.   

14 hours ago, bolverk said:

I'm most definitely not saying to keep support to a minimum that only guarantees they keep bleeding until exhaustion. I want to provide them with increased support and want them to win.

That said, I also recognize that most wars end in negotiated settlements instead of unconditional surrender, which will likely be the case in this war. 

Hold or take everything west of the red line on that map above and wait for Putin to die, is what my militarily uneducated mind says is the best play. 

1 hour ago, morehornsepower said:

As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting, we should support them. 

 Yes, we should have thrown in more support, more quickly.  But, in the ugly world of geopolitics, bleeding Russia is considered a goal just as important as helping Ukraine.  I don't like it, but we all know it's true.  

According to that article, "well, since all wars end in negotiation", (duh!), "Ukraine should just negotiate now, regardless of their leverage or lack thereof".  I guess my response to that would be: "Fuck you.  That's Ukraine's decision."

100% Ukraines decision.  But somebody need to have their back, or it doesn't matter.

The US gave Ukraine 3 days, and they are now in year 3.  Pretty embarrassing to be that wrong given the amount of "intelligence gathering" in the world. Everyone here knows that US support now costs pennies on the dollar v. defense spending to fortify Europe with a Putin mindset of getting the band back together. 

If a choice must be made, the red line is preferable to conceding Crimea. The main issue being the line of demarcation is no more significant that a red line on a map.

Acceptance of the status quo and waiting for Putin to die is okay, but has implications that Ukraine is going back later to get what is theirs. That means Ukraine "violates" the cease fire, or there was never a real agreement in the first place.  So why wait.

1 hour ago, RPM said:

Russia marching into anywhere uninvited should always be met with a big Fuck You.

Now is the time to stop this. If not, it continues to go on forever.

56 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 Nothing but white smoke and no secondaries. Either all the shrapnel missed or more evidence of plywood not exploding.

 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Schulz2.0 28652]

 

 

[B00M 6033]

37 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Sounds like Russia is really sending the 50k troops? You have to expect Ukrainians to concede territory in order to kill that many Russians.  It will be interesting to see if Russia is able to control both sides of the Kharkiv river as they try to drive south

[956 Worldwide 34019]

On 5/10/2024 at 9:16 PM, Bevo said:

I don't think that Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most importantly, Ukraine... think like that. Russia seems like it is on the brink of collapse. Bulgaria and Georgia are a mess. And all Russia has is a bunch of dumbasses who are forced to fight. But, I don't think we were ever that comfortable with a Ukraine victory or at least our weapons deployment seemed to indicate a more measured approach than what was necessary for victory.

My question is whether the more vested Eastern European countries can provide enough to Ukraine to allow it to outlast Putin. I don't get the feeling that Eastern Europe is comfortable with Ukraine going quietly into the night. And from the US perspective, it actually puts us closer to a direct conflict with Russia the more Eastern Europe gets involved.

So, give Ukraine what it needs to win and quit pussyfooting around. We love to play politics and implement policies that affect other people's lives and create more restraints than we would ever place on ourselves. We did it here. We did it with Israel. And we have done it with a whole host of countries. And in the process we've help destroy countries and provided opportunities for our enemies.

So, yeah, we are concerned about escalation. We are concerned about securing Russian nuclear weapons if it collapses. We are concerned about oil and gas prices. We are concerned about Russia and a bunch of Russian affiliated countries devolving into civil war. We are concerned about China playing a role in securing Russian assets following a collapse. And all of these concerns lead to indecision and inaction. And a lack of a will to win.

Russia is not on the brink of collapse internally, they can take a lot more pain and they will. But they also have a cap on what they can accomplish. Ukraine needs to hold on through 2024 and surrender only small chunks and regenerate forces but all of that falls apart without Western arms. The issue is that Ukraine actually had Russia on its heels and could have made bigger gains but we chose not to move quick enough due partly to a fear they can’t digest aid, and party to a fear that a collapse of Russian lines in Ukraine would lead to escalation. 

[956 Worldwide 34019]

9 hours ago, PTINS said:

The Eastern European baby boomers grew up knowing and living through the suffering of their parents and grandparents under Soviet Russia's thumb.

They've seen and prospered under a different life, no way your getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

The EU & NATO recognized that their complacent acceptance of the recent past has put them in a position they don't want to be in. They are increasing defense spending in a manner that they can defend the front lines, in the belief that their allies have their backs, the isolationist behavior of the US be damned.

Now, more than ever, the world economy is interconnected as never before, with the causes and effects manifesting in days and weeks rather than months and years. The longer this drags on, the more Europe is at risk, and the higher the probability for economic shocks, which will ultimately gets the US to open their eyes.

Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons, based on representations by the powers that be. Given the fucked up non-response by the US in 2014, and our on-again off-again mindset, I don't see many countries compromising their nuclear "security" in the future.

Hard to believe that Russia and China would jeopardize their piece of a multi $ Trillion world economy over a few trinkets, but here we are.   

100% Ukraines decision.  But somebody need to have their back, or it doesn't matter.

The US gave Ukraine 3 days, and they are now in year 3.  Pretty embarrassing to be that wrong given the amount of "intelligence gathering" in the world. Everyone here knows that US support now costs pennies on the dollar v. defense spending to fortify Europe with a Putin mindset of getting the band back together. 

If a choice must be made, the red line is preferable to conceding Crimea. The main issue being the line of demarcation is no more significant that a red line on a map.

Acceptance of the status quo and waiting for Putin to die is okay, but has implications that Ukraine is going back later to get what is theirs. That means Ukraine "violates" the cease fire, or there was never a real agreement in the first place.  So why wait.

Now is the time to stop this. If not, it continues to go on forever.

 

We assessed that Putin believed and planned that he would capture and cut off Kyiv in a few days, not that we believed it would happen. Based on what the Russians actually did with their invasion force (which was too small and did not bring strategic aviation to bear right away), it’s a safe bet we were right on Putin’s planning and belief.  
 

If Hostomel airport goes a different way, then the war maybe also goes a different way. 

[atomheartbevo 89054]

39 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We assessed that Putin believed and planned that he would capture and cut off Kyiv in a few days, not that we believed it would happen. Based on what the Russians actually did with their invasion force (which was too small and did not bring strategic aviation to bear right away), it’s a safe bet we were right on Putin’s planning and belief.  
If Hostomel airport goes a different way, then the war maybe also goes a different way. 

They also didn’t have enough supplies to sustain themselves, hence the infamous convoy that bogged down.  They thought they’d be making a thunder run to Kyiv.

[956 Worldwide 34019]

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They also didn’t have enough supplies to sustain themselves, hence the infamous convoy that bogged down.  They thought they’d be making a thunder run to Kyiv.

Yep, and they wanted to use Hostomel to airlift in heavy equipment and troops to lead the pressure on Kyiv. The plan was to capture the city and likely decapitate leadership and then watch Ukrainian forces fall apart.  Unlike what we did in Iraq, they did not precede any of this with extensive air strikes, because they wanted some element of surprise for the ground invasion. 

[atomheartbevo 89054]

50 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Russia is not on the brink of collapse internally, they can take a lot more pain and they will. But they also have a cap on what they can accomplish. Ukraine needs to hold on through 2024 and surrender only small chunks and regenerate forces but all of that falls apart without Western arms. The issue is that Ukraine actually had Russia on its heels and could have made bigger gains but we chose not to move quick enough due partly to a fear they can’t digest aid, and party to a fear that a collapse of Russian lines in Ukraine would lead to escalation. 

We are reaching a point in Ukraine’s domestic production of drones and missiles, where Ukraine will remove Crimea from the Russian equation on some level in terms of preventing Russian ships from docking there, as well as making it difficult to reinforce or supply their ground forces there (when they finally take the Kerch bridge down and pressure the rail system more).  They are playing with the Russian economic export structure (oil and gas), but it’s safe to say they can start putting the hurt on anything within Crime.

Hell, they’ve been softening up air defenses in Crimea, and the attacks within Russia proper are forcing Russia to move their air defense assets around (and even out of Ukraine), so what happens when they get F-16s and more missiles into play?

What then?  Is it worth all of the sanctions for a massive piece of land that has lost its naval and forward air support value, and only has symbolic value and that Ukraine will continue to chip away at?

And what if Ukraine takes out the Kerch bridge soon, and takes out more landing craft-style ships, does Russia give up on Kharkiv to try and rush down there?  If the Kerch bridge went down, that would freak a lot of Russian leaders the fuck out.

[atomheartbevo 89054]

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yep, and they wanted to use Hostomel to airlift in heavy equipment and troops to lead the pressure on Kyiv. The plan was to capture the city and likely decapitate leadership and then watch Ukrainian forces fall apart.  Unlike what we did in Iraq, they did not precede any of this with extensive air strikes, because they wanted some element of surprise for the ground invasion. 

And it’s May of 2024 and Russia is still trying large-scale assaults against well-trained and equipped forces with an extensive aerial campaign (at least one that didn’t involve hitting civilian apartment buildings and schools). 

[B00M 6033]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Based on what the Russians actually did with their invasion force (which was too small and did not bring strategic aviation to bear right away),

It’s still wild to me that Russia didn’t or couldn’t go all in with their Air Force to locate and destroy all of Ukraine’s air defenses in the first month. 

[Schulz2.0 28652]

9 hours ago, B00M said:

Sounds like Russia is really sending the 50k troops? You have to expect Ukrainians to concede territory in order to kill that many Russians.  It will be interesting to see if Russia is able to control both sides of the Kharkiv river as they try to drive south

Guys like Michael Kofman think Russia is doing the Kharkiv "offensive" as a fixing action. Ukraine is currently limited on troops so force them to send troops to defend Kharkiv in order to exploit numbers to the south.

[Schulz2.0 28652]

[Dahobbs 17255]

23 hours ago, PTINS said:

The Eastern European baby boomers grew up knowing and living through the suffering of their parents and grandparents under Soviet Russia's thumb.

They've seen and prospered under a different life, no way your getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

The EU & NATO recognized that their complacent acceptance of the recent past has put them in a position they don't want to be in. They are increasing defense spending in a manner that they can defend the front lines, in the belief that their allies have their backs, the isolationist behavior of the US be damned.

Now, more than ever, the world economy is interconnected as never before, with the causes and effects manifesting in days and weeks rather than months and years. The longer this drags on, the more Europe is at risk, and the higher the probability for economic shocks, which will ultimately gets the US to open their eyes.

Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons, based on representations by the powers that be. Given the fucked up non-response by the US in 2014, and our on-again off-again mindset, I don't see many countries compromising their nuclear "security" in the future.

Hard to believe that Russia and China would jeopardize their piece of a multi $ Trillion world economy over a few trinkets, but here we are.   

100% Ukraines decision.  But somebody need to have their back, or it doesn't matter.

The US gave Ukraine 3 days, and they are now in year 3.  Pretty embarrassing to be that wrong given the amount of "intelligence gathering" in the world. Everyone here knows that US support now costs pennies on the dollar v. defense spending to fortify Europe with a Putin mindset of getting the band back together. 

If a choice must be made, the red line is preferable to conceding Crimea. The main issue being the line of demarcation is no more significant that a red line on a map.

Acceptance of the status quo and waiting for Putin to die is okay, but has implications that Ukraine is going back later to get what is theirs. That means Ukraine "violates" the cease fire, or there was never a real agreement in the first place.  So why wait.

Now is the time to stop this. If not, it continues to go on forever.

 

Somehow you're twisting one of the best performances of our intelligence services, correctly predicting that Russia was going to invade Ukraine despite Ukraine and many other countries saying otherwise, into a failure. We we're yelling from roof tops about what Russia was planning (take Kyiv in 3 days) and no one was listening. 

That said, you're conclusion that we need to fully Ukraine now is right on. 

Edited May 12 by Dahobbs

[Bevo 13440]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

On 5/11/2024 at 11:39 AM, PTINS said:

 

Somehow you're twisting one of the best performances of our intelligence services, correctly predicting that Russia was going to invade Ukraine despite Ukraine and many other countries saying otherwise, into a failure. We we're yelling from roof tops about what Russia was planning (take Kyiv in 3 days) and no one was listening.

I don't know where you are getting that from what he wrote. But since you brought it up, what I remember is a big debate in the US and internationally not denying that there was a troop build up but thinking that an invasion wouldn't happen because the build-up wasn't big enough.

[Dahobbs 17255]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I don't know where you are getting that from what he wrote. But since you brought it up, what I remember is a big debate in the US and internationally not denying that there was a troop build up but thinking that an invasion wouldn't happen because the build-up wasn't big enough.

You remember the debate from others. The US was adamant that Russia would attack. Example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/biden-ukraine-us-russian-invasion-winter-olympics

 

Edited May 12 by Dahobbs

[Bevo 13440]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You remember the debate from others. The US was adamant that Russia would attack. 

So far all I have found is that we were both wrong and that NATO expected an attack as well:

 

West warns military build-up near Ukraine growing, not shrinking

By Alexander Marrow and Aleksandar Vasovic

February 16, 202210:54 PM CSTUpdated 2 years ago

MOSCOW/KYIV, Feb 16 (Reuters) - There is a growing Russian military presence at Ukraine's borders, Western countries warned on Wednesday, as Estonia said battle groups were moving ahead of a likely attack to occupy "key terrain," contradicting Moscow's insistence of a pullback.

More armored vehicles, helicopters and a field hospital have been spotted, Britain's defense intelligence chief said in rare public comments.

Up to 7,000 more troops have moved to the border in recent days, including some arriving on Wednesday, a senior official in U.S. President Joe Biden's administration said, without providing evidence.

World powers are engaged in one of the deepest crises in East-West relations for decades, jostling over post-Cold War influence and energy supplies as Russia wants to stop Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.

Western nations have suggested arms control and confidence-building steps to defuse the standoff, which has prompted them to urge their citizens to leave Ukraine because an attack could come at any time. Russia denies it has any plans to invade.

"There's what Russia says. And then there's what Russia does. And we haven't seen any pullback of its forces," U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview on MSNBC.

"We continue to see critical units moving toward the border, not away from the border."

Estonian intelligence is aware of around 10 battle groups of troops moving toward the Ukrainian border, where it estimates about 170,000 soldiers are already deployed, said Mikk Marran, director general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service.

The attack would include missile bombardment and the occupation of "key terrain," he added.

"If Russia is successful in Ukraine, it would encourage it to increase pressure on the Baltics in the coming years," he said. "The threat of war has become the main policy tool for Putin."

Russia's defense ministry said its forces were pulling back after exercises in southern and western military districts near Ukraine, and Moscow's ambassador to Ireland insisted forces in western Russia would be back to their normal positions within three to four weeks.

It published video that it said showed tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery units leaving the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.

But NATO military commanders are drawing up plans for new combat units that diplomats said could be deployed in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.

Such units - designed to buy time for additional soldiers to reach the front line if needed - already exist in Poland and the Baltic states.

Britain will double the size of its force in Estonia and send tanks and armored fighting vehicles to the small Baltic republic bordering Russia as part of the NATO deployment.

Ukraine also increased the number of border guards on its frontier with Belarus, Russia's ally, where some 9,000 Russian troops are estimated to be involved in military exercises.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who is criss-crossing the country to help bolster Ukrainians' morale, observed drills by his armed forces that included Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Wednesday was designated a patriotic holiday in response to reports Russia could invade on that day. "No one can love our home as we can. And only we, together, can protect our home," he said. read more

People raised flags and played the national anthem to show unity against fears of an invasion.

The government said a cyberattack that hit the defense ministry was the worst of its kind the country had seen, pointing the finger at Russia, which denied involvement. read more

U.S. officials were as yet unable to say who was responsible, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said.

'MORE TROOPS ON WAY'

The risk of Russian aggression against Ukraine would remain high for the rest of February and Russia could still attack Ukraine "with essentially no, or little-to-no, warning," according to a senior Western intelligence official.

NATO said it could prove Russia's failure to pull back its soldiers with satellite imagery. "More troops are on their way," said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Moscow has accused the West of hysterical war propaganda after repeated warnings of a possible attack.

Russia sees Ukraine joining NATO as a threat to its security and has said it is ready to reroute energy exports to other markets if it is hit by sanctions, which Washington and its allies have threatened if it invades.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said sanctions against Russian banks would be "unpleasant" but the state would ensure all bank deposits and transactions were secured. read more

Despite the war of words, diplomatic efforts continue.

Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the "importance of continued transatlantic coordination" on a call on Wednesday, the White House said.

Ukraine has asked the U.N. Security Council to discuss on Thursday a bid by Russia's parliament to recognize self-proclaimed separatists.

British foreign minister Liz Truss is due to visit Kyiv this week and Blinken will travel to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, which starts on Friday, to coordinate with allies.

"The door continues to be open to diplomacy," said Psaki.

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Alexander Marrow and Alexander Vasovic; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Nandita Bose and Susan Heavey in Washington, Phil Stewart and Sabine Siebold in Brussels and Andrius Sytas in Riga; Writing by Mark Trevelyan, Philippa Fletcher, Gareth Jones and Costas Pitas; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Grant McCool

Edited May 12 by Bevo

[Gatorubet 29789]

15 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 If Hostomel airport goes a different way, then the war maybe also goes a different way. 

100% this!   They thought once they took the airport with special forces, they would start landing troops and material sufficient to either arrest or cause Ukrainians leaders to flee the country.     Ivan takes Hostomel and maybe “I don’t need a ride. I need more ammo”  becomes a plane ticket to DC or arrest video - and resistance fades. 

That is what happens when politicians plan a military exercise instead of letting the military do it.   I doubt they have a long line of military vehicles without gas - but with the troops having dress uniforms for the Kyiv victory parade. 

Edited May 12 by Gatorubet
you’d think I’d know how to spell KYIV by now

[Dahobbs 17255]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

So far all I have found is that we were both wrong and that NATO expected an attack as well:

 

West warns military build-up near Ukraine growing, not shrinking

By Alexander Marrow and Aleksandar Vasovic

February 16, 202210:54 PM CSTUpdated 2 years ago

MOSCOW/KYIV, Feb 16 (Reuters) - There is a growing Russian military presence at Ukraine's borders, Western countries warned on Wednesday, as Estonia said battle groups were moving ahead of a likely attack to occupy "key terrain," contradicting Moscow's insistence of a pullback.

More armored vehicles, helicopters and a field hospital have been spotted, Britain's defense intelligence chief said in rare public comments.

Up to 7,000 more troops have moved to the border in recent days, including some arriving on Wednesday, a senior official in U.S. President Joe Biden's administration said, without providing evidence.

World powers are engaged in one of the deepest crises in East-West relations for decades, jostling over post-Cold War influence and energy supplies as Russia wants to stop Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.

Western nations have suggested arms control and confidence-building steps to defuse the standoff, which has prompted them to urge their citizens to leave Ukraine because an attack could come at any time. Russia denies it has any plans to invade.

"There's what Russia says. And then there's what Russia does. And we haven't seen any pullback of its forces," U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview on MSNBC.

"We continue to see critical units moving toward the border, not away from the border."

Estonian intelligence is aware of around 10 battle groups of troops moving toward the Ukrainian border, where it estimates about 170,000 soldiers are already deployed, said Mikk Marran, director general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service.

The attack would include missile bombardment and the occupation of "key terrain," he added.

"If Russia is successful in Ukraine, it would encourage it to increase pressure on the Baltics in the coming years," he said. "The threat of war has become the main policy tool for Putin."

Russia's defense ministry said its forces were pulling back after exercises in southern and western military districts near Ukraine, and Moscow's ambassador to Ireland insisted forces in western Russia would be back to their normal positions within three to four weeks.

It published video that it said showed tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery units leaving the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.

But NATO military commanders are drawing up plans for new combat units that diplomats said could be deployed in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.

Such units - designed to buy time for additional soldiers to reach the front line if needed - already exist in Poland and the Baltic states.

Britain will double the size of its force in Estonia and send tanks and armored fighting vehicles to the small Baltic republic bordering Russia as part of the NATO deployment.

Ukraine also increased the number of border guards on its frontier with Belarus, Russia's ally, where some 9,000 Russian troops are estimated to be involved in military exercises.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who is criss-crossing the country to help bolster Ukrainians' morale, observed drills by his armed forces that included Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Wednesday was designated a patriotic holiday in response to reports Russia could invade on that day. "No one can love our home as we can. And only we, together, can protect our home," he said. read more

People raised flags and played the national anthem to show unity against fears of an invasion.

The government said a cyberattack that hit the defense ministry was the worst of its kind the country had seen, pointing the finger at Russia, which denied involvement. read more

U.S. officials were as yet unable to say who was responsible, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said.

'MORE TROOPS ON WAY'

The risk of Russian aggression against Ukraine would remain high for the rest of February and Russia could still attack Ukraine "with essentially no, or little-to-no, warning," according to a senior Western intelligence official.

NATO said it could prove Russia's failure to pull back its soldiers with satellite imagery. "More troops are on their way," said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Moscow has accused the West of hysterical war propaganda after repeated warnings of a possible attack.

Russia sees Ukraine joining NATO as a threat to its security and has said it is ready to reroute energy exports to other markets if it is hit by sanctions, which Washington and its allies have threatened if it invades.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said sanctions against Russian banks would be "unpleasant" but the state would ensure all bank deposits and transactions were secured. read more

Despite the war of words, diplomatic efforts continue.

Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the "importance of continued transatlantic coordination" on a call on Wednesday, the White House said.

Ukraine has asked the U.N. Security Council to discuss on Thursday a bid by Russia's parliament to recognize self-proclaimed separatists.

British foreign minister Liz Truss is due to visit Kyiv this week and Blinken will travel to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, which starts on Friday, to coordinate with allies.

"The door continues to be open to diplomacy," said Psaki.

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Alexander Marrow and Alexander Vasovic; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Nandita Bose and Susan Heavey in Washington, Phil Stewart and Sabine Siebold in Brussels and Andrius Sytas in Riga; Writing by Mark Trevelyan, Philippa Fletcher, Gareth Jones and Costas Pitas; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Grant McCool

Ukraine and Germany didn't think the attack would take place. The UK was mostly on the same page as us but was a bit more equivocal. France was trying to play as mediator the whole time. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-invasion-predictions-wrong-intelligence/32275740.html

Spoiler

On February 22, 2022, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, took a phone call from the United States’ top diplomat.

 

According to Borrell, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told him that Russia, after months of building up a massive military force on Ukraine’s border, was, in fact, going to invade.

“Tony Blinken phoned me and told me, ‘Well, it is going to happen this weekend’,” Borrell recalled in a speech months later. “And certainly, two days later, at 5 o’clock in the morning, they started bombing Kyiv. We did not believe that this was going to happen.

“We did not believe that the war was coming,” he said.

 

[956 Worldwide 34019]

26 minutes ago, Bevo said:

So far all I have found is that we were both wrong and that NATO expected an attack as well:

 

West warns military build-up near Ukraine growing, not shrinking

By Alexander Marrow and Aleksandar Vasovic

February 16, 202210:54 PM CSTUpdated 2 years ago

MOSCOW/KYIV, Feb 16 (Reuters) - There is a growing Russian military presence at Ukraine's borders, Western countries warned on Wednesday, as Estonia said battle groups were moving ahead of a likely attack to occupy "key terrain," contradicting Moscow's insistence of a pullback.

More armored vehicles, helicopters and a field hospital have been spotted, Britain's defense intelligence chief said in rare public comments.

Up to 7,000 more troops have moved to the border in recent days, including some arriving on Wednesday, a senior official in U.S. President Joe Biden's administration said, without providing evidence.

World powers are engaged in one of the deepest crises in East-West relations for decades, jostling over post-Cold War influence and energy supplies as Russia wants to stop Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.

Western nations have suggested arms control and confidence-building steps to defuse the standoff, which has prompted them to urge their citizens to leave Ukraine because an attack could come at any time. Russia denies it has any plans to invade.

"There's what Russia says. And then there's what Russia does. And we haven't seen any pullback of its forces," U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview on MSNBC.

"We continue to see critical units moving toward the border, not away from the border."

Estonian intelligence is aware of around 10 battle groups of troops moving toward the Ukrainian border, where it estimates about 170,000 soldiers are already deployed, said Mikk Marran, director general of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service.

The attack would include missile bombardment and the occupation of "key terrain," he added.

"If Russia is successful in Ukraine, it would encourage it to increase pressure on the Baltics in the coming years," he said. "The threat of war has become the main policy tool for Putin."

Russia's defense ministry said its forces were pulling back after exercises in southern and western military districts near Ukraine, and Moscow's ambassador to Ireland insisted forces in western Russia would be back to their normal positions within three to four weeks.

It published video that it said showed tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and self-propelled artillery units leaving the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014.

But NATO military commanders are drawing up plans for new combat units that diplomats said could be deployed in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia.

Such units - designed to buy time for additional soldiers to reach the front line if needed - already exist in Poland and the Baltic states.

Britain will double the size of its force in Estonia and send tanks and armored fighting vehicles to the small Baltic republic bordering Russia as part of the NATO deployment.

Ukraine also increased the number of border guards on its frontier with Belarus, Russia's ally, where some 9,000 Russian troops are estimated to be involved in military exercises.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who is criss-crossing the country to help bolster Ukrainians' morale, observed drills by his armed forces that included Javelin anti-tank missiles.

Wednesday was designated a patriotic holiday in response to reports Russia could invade on that day. "No one can love our home as we can. And only we, together, can protect our home," he said. read more

People raised flags and played the national anthem to show unity against fears of an invasion.

The government said a cyberattack that hit the defense ministry was the worst of its kind the country had seen, pointing the finger at Russia, which denied involvement. read more

U.S. officials were as yet unable to say who was responsible, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said.

'MORE TROOPS ON WAY'

The risk of Russian aggression against Ukraine would remain high for the rest of February and Russia could still attack Ukraine "with essentially no, or little-to-no, warning," according to a senior Western intelligence official.

NATO said it could prove Russia's failure to pull back its soldiers with satellite imagery. "More troops are on their way," said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Moscow has accused the West of hysterical war propaganda after repeated warnings of a possible attack.

Russia sees Ukraine joining NATO as a threat to its security and has said it is ready to reroute energy exports to other markets if it is hit by sanctions, which Washington and its allies have threatened if it invades.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said sanctions against Russian banks would be "unpleasant" but the state would ensure all bank deposits and transactions were secured. read more

Despite the war of words, diplomatic efforts continue.

Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the "importance of continued transatlantic coordination" on a call on Wednesday, the White House said.

Ukraine has asked the U.N. Security Council to discuss on Thursday a bid by Russia's parliament to recognize self-proclaimed separatists.

British foreign minister Liz Truss is due to visit Kyiv this week and Blinken will travel to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, which starts on Friday, to coordinate with allies.

"The door continues to be open to diplomacy," said Psaki.

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Alexander Marrow and Alexander Vasovic; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Nandita Bose and Susan Heavey in Washington, Phil Stewart and Sabine Siebold in Brussels and Andrius Sytas in Riga; Writing by Mark Trevelyan, Philippa Fletcher, Gareth Jones and Costas Pitas; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Grant McCool

The U.S. was demarching NATO Allies with downgraded intelligence about a likely attack as early as November 2021 and by February 2022 we were bringing them downgraded intelligence that fairly accurately described the opening phases of the invasion and what Putin wanted to accomplish.  Some believed us and some didn’t (Germany). 

[Bevo 13440]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Ukraine and Germany didn't think the attack would take place. The UK was mostly on the same page as us but was a bit more equivocal. France was trying to play as mediator the whole time. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-invasion-predictions-wrong-intelligence/32275740.html

  Hide contents

On February 22, 2022, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, took a phone call from the United States’ top diplomat.

 

According to Borrell, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told him that Russia, after months of building up a massive military force on Ukraine’s border, was, in fact, going to invade.

“Tony Blinken phoned me and told me, ‘Well, it is going to happen this weekend’,” Borrell recalled in a speech months later. “And certainly, two days later, at 5 o’clock in the morning, they started bombing Kyiv. We did not believe that this was going to happen.

“We did not believe that the war was coming,” he said.

 

Maybe it was an EU thing, because NATO apparently was pretty sure that it would happen:

US hasn’t verified Russian pullback of troops near Ukraine
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, YURAS KARMANAU and AAMER MADHANI
Published 6:20 PM CDT, February 15, 2022

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that he welcomed a security dialogue with the West, and his military reported pulling back some of its troops near Ukraine. But U.S. President Joe Biden said the U.S. had not verified Russia’s claim and that an invasion was still a distinct possibility.

Putin said he does not want war and would rely on negotiations in his efforts to eliminate any chance that Ukraine could one day join NATO. At the same time, he did not commit to a full pullback of troops, saying Russia’s next moves in the standoff will depend on how the situation evolves.

In remarks at the White House, Biden promised that the U.S. would continue to give diplomacy “every chance” to prevent a Russian invasion, but he struck a skeptical tone about Moscow’s intentions. Biden also insisted that the U.S. and its allies would not “sacrifice basic principles” respecting Ukraine sovereignty.

“Two paths are still open,” Biden said. “But let there be no doubt: If Russia commits this breach by invading Ukraine, responsible nations around the world will not hesitate to respond. If we do not stand for freedom where it is at risk today, we’ll surely pay a steeper price tomorrow.”

Putin’s overtures soothed global markets that have been on edge amid the worst East-West tensions in decades. Washington and its European allies remained cautious, saying they want to see evidence of a Russian pullback. Biden said 150,000 Russian forces are now massed near Ukraine and in Belarus, an increase from an earlier U.S. estimate of 130,000 troops.

Russia’s claim that it pulled back troops “would be good, but we have not yet verified that,” Biden said. “Indeed, our analysts indicate that they remain very much in a threatening position.”

The U.S. and NATO, which continue to warn that Russia could invade at any time, have sent troops and military supplies to shore up alliance members in Eastern Europe. Russia has denied having such plans. It wants the West to keep Ukraine and other ex-Soviet nations out of the alliance, halt weapons deployments near Russian borders and roll back forces from Eastern Europe.

The U.S. and its allies have roundly rejected those demands, but offered to engage in talks with Russia on ways to bolster security in Europe.

Speaking after meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Putin said the West agreed to discuss a ban on missile deployment to Europe, restrictions on military drills and other confidence-building measures — issues that Moscow put on the table years ago.

He said Russia is open to discuss “some of those elements,” but added that it would do so only in combination “with the main issues that are of primary importance for us.”

Asked if there could be a war in Europe, Putin said Russia doesn’t want it but that Ukraine’s bid to join NATO posed a major security threat to his country.

While Scholz reiterated that NATO’s eastward expansion “is not on the agenda — everyone knows that very well,” Putin retorted that Moscow will not be assuaged by such assurances.

“They are telling us it won’t happen tomorrow,” Putin said. “Well, when will it happen? The day after tomorrow? What does it change for us in the historic perspective? Nothing.”

Scholz also said diplomatic options are “far from exhausted,” and he praised the announcement of a troop withdrawal as a “good signal,” adding: “We hope that more will follow.”

The Russian Defense Ministry released images of tanks and howitzers rolling onto railway platforms and more tanks rolling across snowy fields. It did not disclose where or when the images were taken, or where the vehicles were headed, other than “to places of permanent deployment.”

Biden acknowledged the likelihood that sanctions imposed on Russia in retaliation for an invasion would have significant blowback on the American economy, including possible price hikes and disruption to the nation’s energy supply.

“The American people understand that defending democracy and liberty is never without cost,” Biden said. “I will not pretend this will be painless.”

He said the administration was trying to preempt supply issues by working with energy producers and shippers on contingency plans. The president said he would work with Congress on unspecified “additional measures to protect consumers and address the impact of prices at the pump.”

Russian forces continue to threaten Ukraine along the eastern border and from the Black Sea Crimean Peninsula that Moscow seized from Ukraine in 2014, the year when it also backed a separatist insurgency in the country’s east. More Russian troops loom over Ukraine in Belarus, where they were deployed for sweeping joint drills.

Ukraine expressed skepticism about Russia’s statements of a pullback.

“We won’t believe when we hear, we’ll believe when we see. When we see troops pulling out, we’ll believe in de-escalation,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that “so far, we have not seen ... any signs of reduced Russian military presence on the borders of Ukraine,” adding that the alliance wants to see a “significant and enduring withdrawal” of forces, troops and heavy equipment.

Meanwhile, a series of cyberattacks on Tuesday knocked out the websites of the Ukrainian army, the defense ministry and major banks. There was no indication that the relatively low-level denial-of-service attacks might be a smokescreen for more serious cyber mischief. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the U.S. has not yet determined who was behind the attacks.

Few Russians expect a war, following the Kremlin’s dismissal of Western warnings as “hysteria” and “absurdity.”

In a village in Russia’s Belgorod region, about 30 kilometers (18 miles) from Ukraine’s border, residents carried on with life as usual, even as more military personnel have been passing through village streets.

“We are friends with Ukraine,” villager Lyudmila Nechvolod said. “We are really on the border, we really have relatives here and there, everyone has somebody there (on the Ukrainian side). No one wants war.”

Diplomatic efforts continued Tuesday.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Biden spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday about the evolving crisis.

Meanwhile, Russian lawmakers urged Putin to recognize rebel-held areas in eastern Ukraine as independent states. The State Duma, Russia’s lower house, voted to submit an appeal to Putin to that effect.

Putin said the request reflects the Russian public’s sympathy for the suffering of people trapped in the conflict in eastern Ukraine that has killed over 14,000 since 2014. He noted, however, that Russia continues to believe a 2015 peace deal brokered by France and Germany should serve as the main vehicle for a settlement of the separatist conflict.

Putin’s statement signaled that he wasn’t inclined to back the parliament proposal that would effectively invalidate the 2015 agreement, which marked a major diplomatic coup for Moscow and asked Kyiv to offer broad self-rule to the separatist territories. It has been resented by many in Ukraine, and its implementation has stalled.
___

Karmanau reported from Kyiv, Ukraine and Madhani from Washington. Dasha Litvinova in Moscow, Angela Charlton in Paris, Lorne Cook in Brussels, Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Geir Moulson in Berlin, Jill Lawless in London, Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Robert Burns, Matthew Lee and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed.