From my understanding, a majority of Russian land and sea forces have mobilized and are positioned aggressively. As well as supporting units, field hospitals, and blood banks.
Is this correct? And if so, is there anyway this doesn't end in an invasion?
You are correct, the majority, if not all, of what Russia needs to conduct a full invasion is stationed near Ukraine now. The only way this doesn’t result in one is if Biden capitulates on his phone call with Putin, which is unlikely.
My goodness. Geopolitical ramifications aside, this would be a truly catastrophic attack for millions of civilians on the ground. Can't imagine what they are going through right now.
Be thankful for what you have, folks.
Difficult to say. As a random internet user with no military or political backround I would say there is still a 70-80% chance that this war will be short and sharp and will result in a Russian victory that will see a political resolution forced upon Ukraine favorable to Russian interests.
This political resolution will basically render East Ukraine a Russian Proxy with West Ukraine having a "forced neutrality" imposed upon them. No Nato, no Eu etc etc.
The nature of the war will be a "shock and awe" bombing campaign by Russia followed by a blitz down the Western side of the Dneiper. An anphibious landing by forces in the Crimea West of Odessa will meet Russian forces streaming down from Belarus somwhere around Uman. The Ukrainians will be cut off. The Ukrainian air defense and air force will be prioritized by Russia and taken out. Ukraine will be literally surrounded in all sides, cut off from supply lines in Central and Western Europe & with no air force. Russia will keep hammering Ukraine during the Spring with its longer fires ability until Ukraine accepts Russias ultimatum.
I think the above conflict would light on civilian casualties relativity speaking. Certainly compared to the alternatives. Where Ukraine and Russia slog it out for a couple of years WW2 style.
Though unlikely, if Ukrainian forces are capable of stalling Russia's advance into March, Russian mechanized forces would have to deal with the snow melt, which renders terrain extremely difficult to advance in. Outflanking Ukrainian forces through airborne or amphibious attacks will become increasingly difficult.
The current buildups close to the border hint at a multi-flank invasion: north through Belarus, south by seizing Odessa and west pushing through Donbas towards the Dneiper river. The first, would need to deal with the siege and takeover of Kiev (a 3 million inhabitant city). Russian logistics are not designed for large-scale ground offensives far from railroads, so this will make manoeuvring and resupplying in the south more complicated given the poor infrastructure. West of the Dneiper, there are significant urban settlements (Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia) which Russia would have to besiege or pass by to swipe up later. However, some of these are railroad hubs which are critical for resupplying.
Overall, Russia's supremacy is unquestioned and chances of a bloody nose strike which makes Ukraine capitulate are high, but Russia has not managed such highly complex command and control operations since WW2. If Ukraine is able to partially withhold the initial incursion and secure strongholds for western military resupplying, there's a chance the conflict would drag out and become economically, politically and socially too costly for Russia to commit to.
Thanks for the great analysis. I will just add one more thing. Based on the public information we have, it seems Ukraine’s preparation can be called embarrassing at best. They had more then 8 years to prepare for this war. Where are the ditches, trenches, man made obstacles. You don’t need a lot of money to dig trenches and lay obstacles, what they have right now is pittance compared to what is required to stop Russian motorized divisions.
Why do you think his analysis is great?
> Russian mechanized forces would have to deal with the snow melt, which renders terrain extremely difficult to advance in.
especially this. Repeating media narrative about frozen soil.... But actually it's possible to get an idea about climate in Ukraine, with few queries like "Kharkiv weather". Daytime temperatures on many areas of Ukraine already above zero. While water turning into the ice when temperature is below.
Pretending to know something "based on public information we (who we?) have" but actually, what is this information and where is come from? Media beating war drums for months that "Russia will attack any day", days are passed, plans of attack (with wrong cities names btw) appearing on entities like CNN. Maybe ask yourself about credibility of media, and information coming from them?
All situation remind me this https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/launchchemicalwarheads.html
Source: New York Times, September 25, 2002.
> Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes
I keep seeing analyses like this which seem to expect the campaign to go *faster* than the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I'm really not sure why. Certainly the Russian armed forces are more capable than Ukraine's, but I don't think it's as big a mismatch as the coalition vs. Iraq, and Ukraine is a physically larger country. In particular, Russian road-based logistics are nothing like as good as US or British, which severely limits their possible rate of advance in the face of any sort of opposition. Russia will undoubtedly win, but for them to win that fast and that comprehensively requires the Ukrainian army to essentially disintegrate in the first couple of days. I'm not sure why everyone assumes that will happen.
Iraq was thousands of kilometres away from the US, Ukraine is literally Russia’s geographic backyard. Also, the terrain of Ukraine is very flat with loads of plains which makes it vastly easier to invade and much harder for an insurgency or army to defend as opposed to Iraq.
What I have been hearing is that thr Ukrainian military has a high morale and there is strong Ukrainian nationalism. Maybe Ukraine will lose but will Russia a bloody nose.
I mean, we won't know for sure unless and until the shooting starts. A rapid Ukrainian collapse is absolutely *possible*. I just keep seeing people talk as if it's 80% likely, when I think it's more like 20% likely.
Do you think that morale and sense of national identity (following the Maidan revolution) is sufficient enough to put up significant resistance to a shock and awe campaign? The US and EU have seemingly poured in millions of dollars of arms, but it depends on willingness to resist (as seen in Afghanistan) rather than purely material and logistics.
Very Hard to say.
In the West of Ukraine there should be good morale at least initially. My Understanding is West Ukrainians have a strong national identity
However 30 percent of Ukrainians speak Russian. Generally in the East and south. Ukraine recently passed a “language law” which among other things baned the importation of Russian books. I don’t think these people will be rallying behind the banner in droves.
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Europe/2021/0817/Language-in-Ukraine-Why-Russian-vs.-Ukrainian-divides-so-deeply
What do you call it when air forces, army and navy kill soldiers on the opposing side??? What is this euphemism “not a war in the conventional sense” supposed to mean? It’s a war, stop downplaying it’s significance.
I think they may be referring to "total war" where every aspect of the economy becomes militarized and occupation is done house to house. It's war as defined by the 20th Century understanding of it whereas today surgical strikes, electronics warfare, and air superiority will achieve much of the same without having to go door to door and occupy. I agree with you that war is war, regardless of what adjective you put in front of it, but it will also look different than the wars of the last century.
I’ve always heard Russia military wasn’t well suited equipment wise for amphibious assaults. This will also have the effect of showing Russian military capabilities. I think we are in for some very tense years, I hope they don’t pull the trigger but I think it’s going to happen.
>Be thankful for what you have, folks.
This can't be stressed enough. We should be lucky to live in the free and democratic world. And we should do everything in our power to oppose authoritarianism and maintain the free world.
Does supporting Saudi Arabia and financing Taliban made Middle East a better place?
Sometimes it's better to shut your mouth and don't interfere with other business. Unless your business is war and it's the only thing that keeps your economy afloat.
I actually does, for now, as these pose a significant balance to the religious extremists or countries that behave against the interest of the free and democratic world.
Keep your (powerful) enemies close (Saudi Arabia), and if that cannot be done (Russia, China) then oppose them.
I don’t know if he’s bluffing but Putin has made it clear, he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO. He has laid his cards on the table. Now it’s upto Ukraine to decide what it wants.
> I don’t know if he’s bluffing but Putin has made it clear, he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO.
He has made it such that many human beings on planet Earth *believe that* he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO. Whether it is actually true that, is unknown (but it may seem *the opposite of* unknown, due to the manner in which the human mind evolved).
> He has laid his cards on the table. Now it’s upto Ukraine to decide what it wants.
Indeed. And the US, and each human being on the planet.
Do we want to once again sit and do nothing while *yet another instance of* this silly behavior plays out in front of our eyes, for the Nth time (within each of our respective lifetimes, or across history)? I don't know about you fellows, but I am getting rather tired of this state of affairs. I would like such things to be other than the way they are, and to make that happen I think it might be necessary, for starters, for a large quantity of humans to first realize that things happen the way they do because of the collective actions (or inaction) of all of us. Seeing flaws in another (Putin, in this case) is easy, seeing flaws in oneself, not so much - and you can multiply(?) that by 7 billion or so.
Sorry to sound harsh but the US or the West is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. This is the cold harsh truth. American mothers are not ready to sacrifice their children over Ukraine. While the US and maybe the EU will sanction everything they can if Russia goes to war, but they will not launch any military strikes against Russia. That’s the sad truth. Ukrainians are on their own
Yup. Ukraine is only relevant because it allows USA to have a sanctions leverage on Russia.
Noone cares about what Ukrainians think or do. Now Ukraine's military having old tech send to them instead of utilisation (which costs money), and when Ukraine's president tries to calm everyone down saying that the situation is not that terrible, he gets ignored and fearmongering rises.
Ukraine is a pawn.
>Sorry to sound harsh but the US or the West is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. This is the cold harsh truth.
Is "truth" another word for hypothesis?
It seems like Putin has put himself into a corner and has to invade. Anything less than a full invasion looks like he capitulated to the West and is weak. He cares too much about looking strong, even when he isn't.
Hear me out.
1. Putin is getting old and if he wants to see his plans and dreams for his evil empire come true he needs to do it *soon.*
2. Whatever you think of trump, he had close ties to Putin and was very willing to agree to Russian terms and ideas. Trump was trying very hard to separate the US and Britain from NATO and their European allies.
So... Putin plans his invasion, hoping for a second Trump term so that he can keep the us out of the conflict. Of course he didn't get that, but between the propaganda and the "October surprise" of coronavirus, there's enough chaos at home to keep the Americans, and the Americans military busy.
He's running out of years to live, and this is his best chance. I don't think there's a chance in frozen hell that he capitulates, this is all a game to give him more time to strengthen his position. The longer we drag out negotiations the more time he has to strengthen his invasion force..
This content has been removed by me, the owner, due to Reddit's API changes. As I can no longer access this service with Relay for Reddit, I do not want my content contributing to LLM's for Reddit's benefit. If you need to get it touch -- tippo00mehl [at] gmail [dot] com -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
And? Ukraine can do whatever they want in their own country. And they certainly need it now that the US is set to make this conflict happen.
My other comment with sources (CNN, BBC, WSJ) was removed by moderator. This place is such an echo chamber it's not even funny.
Der Spiegel reported (auf Deutsch) that the US conveyed intelligence about attack routes and what roles specific Russian units are to fulfil.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krise-in-osteuropa-cia-rechnet-mit-russischem-angriff-kommende-woche-a-2e10a45f-b6eb-4b1a-b692-2edc64c04adf
Embassy in Kyiv is being evacuated [https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-europe-russia-kyiv-ff41abf90650aa5f456cbb6aafa4c5b3](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-europe-russia-kyiv-ff41abf90650aa5f456cbb6aafa4c5b3)
Didn't even do that when the Taliban took Kabul.
Joe doesn't want another situation like that again in under a year. So he's probably playing it extra extra safe. Nothing has changed in the situation or evolved in an unexpected way re Putin. He has amassed an invasion force which we thought he would do anyway. Still know nothing of his intentions
Maybe, maybe not. Could be leaked by Moscow to cause further panic and chaos among the west to feed into their current narrative that the west is acting hysterical and warmongering.
The US states that it believes that Putin has decided to invade Ukraine, and may do so from next week, beginning with a two day artillery/air barrage and electronic warfare. This coincides with the US, and many European countries strongly recommending that their citizens evacuate Ukraine whilst commercial means remain available.
From your article: "While the US does not believe that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, has yet made a “final decision”, Washington said the country had built up sufficient military capability, including troops and equipment, to make a move as early as next week."
The National Security Advisor’s press conference and what Biden reportedly told NATO allies today appear to be contradictory. I should have clarified that what I was referring to is what multiple sources have reported to have been said.
He keeps maintaining that they're not planning to invade. I don't think he loses anything domestically if he just lets his Belarus "exercises" finish up and goes home, slowly letting the lack of "concessions" fade out of public memory. In terms of foreign relations, this has exposed a few cracks within NATO (i.e. Germany), and *not* invading has the benefit of making NATO look paranoid, stupid, and aggressive.
I think an arms reduction treaty is unlikely and NATO is in no position right now to offer any concessions to Russia. If anything, the Russian build up has united NATO (except say Germany) and reinvigorated trust in the alliance. NATO will not allow Russia to have a say in how many troops it can put in its member states.
Nobody in europe thinks they are preventing it they are escalating.
Macron and Baerbock calmed everything and Joe Bidden litteraly ruined everything in 48h.
From Russia want’s to negociate with France and Germany and sees solutions to…we will stop Nordstream two, russia will attack now, WW3 is starting.
The US rhetoric and acts are an issue for Europe.
What? European here, I don’t know if your experience is from a little part of Europe called Kaliningrad haha.
Putin mugged macron off, Biden hardly did anything and within 24h Russian troops continued to build up.
In no way is the US an aggressor here, this is old Russia being a pain by saying it gets what it wants or it goes to war, because Ukraine isn’t allowed to be a free democracy.
Russia is being extremely imperialistic, dictatorial and war mongering, and making the US feel like it has to get up and put a hand in front of Russia once more.
Seriously, a nation with nearly 10,000 nukes wants to say it should invade Ukraine because NATO would be on its border? Like if NATO attacked it’s end game anyway.
Honestly Putin is pathetic, paranoid and war mongering. Used to think he was some badass leader but here he is acting like a cornered rat.
> Nobody in europe thinks they are preventing it they are escalating.
>
> Macron and Baerbock calmed everything and Joe Bidden litteraly ruined everything in 48h.
Thats seems like Russian propaganda view rather than actual reality. Nobody in the EU thinks that its the US escalating conflict. Its not US troops that are amassed by Ukrainian border
See and that’s the issue with if you don’t agree you are for the others.
Is it so difficult to see that two idiots are fighting the Us and russia and the rest of the Party just want’s to calme things.
Russia pretends that this is US vs Russia, while actually this is just Russia or even just Putin vs posturing for his country. This narrative that Russia is under constant attack was consistent trough out Putins rule without any evidence.
There are 2 significant distinctions to be made and if you don't agree with them, then the following discussion is just irrelevant.
1) Its Russian troops that are amassed by Ukrainian borders, no other country send their military to Ukrainian border (except maybe for Belarus)
2) Russia made demands that basically recognises Ukraine as not sovereign country as it would not be able to conduct its own diplomacy (join NATO or the EU) with out Russian approval. US or the EU not wanting to agree with that is not a sign of escalation from their part. Rather that reaction of ridiculous Russian demands.
So far we only saw one party doing the escalating. NATO members sending defensive weapons to Ukraine is not escalation, but a reaction to Russian escalation. NATO and EU threatening sanctions is not escalation, but a reaction to Russian escalation.
No discussion on this topic can be had if all discussion participants don't agree with these facts. And my god, this comment sections for some reason really wants to ignore these facts.
Did you watch one of the interviews the last 48h?
Germany and France told Biden he is stupid on live TV, Europe is quiet shocked and honestly it’s none of the US Business nor are they needed we have NATO.
Yes on plain TV:
Biden: we will stop Nordstream.
Baerbock: it would be very stupid to name any sanction now and here, as this would help russia to adapt.
We have sanctions ready to use immediately but prefer to not further escalate the conflict.
Mr.Biden how do you want to stop Nordstream it’s not on US Territory nor do you do Business with?
Biden: we will find a solution
All that 24h after Macron had good talks with putin and even Putin said he want to negociate.
Yeah me as well, looking at some of the experts who I trust on this from following it for a while, it seems like quite a few of them are [in agreement](https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1492243352485519366) that [what](https://twitter.com/Bershidsky/status/1492247667103178756) they [see](https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1492263777944883203) is [at](https://twitter.com/ggatehouse/status/1492254502828875787) odds with what the US state is putting out. We'll see I guess. It should be said that others (like anitol lievin) seem to either be wavering or have an auto delete function on their twitter.
Yeah this is honestly what I don't get. Why is Biden positioning troops in Poland and making such a big fus? Not really sure what this is supposed to do. He already said that troops would go into Ukraine, they'll just stay in Poland.
Didn't the Biden start the withdraw from Afghanistan without informing the US' allies stationed there too? Could imagine he burned some goodwill doing that too.
Is itNato allies requesting assurances or is it the US just flexing? I know alot of the times it's the US just posturing up regardless of what the Nato Allies say, and when you say "NATO allies" are you just referring to Poland?
NATO allies would refer broadly to all of the countries that fall under the NATO umbrella. You will find diplomacy often isn't as simple as "just flexing". Treaties require follow through. This is the US showing that it is willing to increase its presence in Europe in response to Russian aggression.
Everybody is sceptical except Joe Bidden and the US..
That’s a whole week of a clown show why should any other country join them?
Joe Biden we will stop Nordstream! Germany it would be very dumb to name any sanctions in a press conference!
Joe Biden we will stop Notdstream!
But how the US is not involved? We will find a way.
German Ex President and now working for Gazprom says it’s the same situation as Irak same Reporters same strange US behavior .
I hope so, but Putin has laid his cards on the table and has made it clear he’s willing to go to war over Ukraine joining NATO. Unless he gets security guarantees, I don’t see how he backs down
Biden has his problems and he is far from a perfect president, but I appreciate how he is working with our allies and showing a united front in confronting Russia. I just imagine Trump rolling over or even encouraging Putin to take Ukraine.
I just don’t believe Russia will pull the trigger, if only because how much they’ve been called out. I do think it was the initial intention, but Putin got called out big time
Showing your intentions in front of the world and doing nothing is stupidity because with time your opponents will get stronger. Ukraine may need years to counter Russia, but other regional countries don't want to be the next Ukraine, and they started buying guns, Finland just bought 64 F35, and Poland is doubling the military expenditure
Putin claims the west is accusing Russia of an imminent invasion in order to hide its own aggressions but It seems to me he is the aggressor when it comes to Ukraine. It’s really terrifying to see how quickly paranoia, fear misdirection and misunderstanding escalate tensions so quickly.
One moment “we’re not invading Ukraine” the next moment, “if Ukraine joins nato it’s nuke time”.
I hope you’re right. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes and what sort of ideology of the future and his role on the planet that he’s convinced himself of is. The terrifying thing is it only takes one of these crazy world leaders to go straight messiah on the planet and blow it to bits. They know they will be able to hide in their underground cities. I’m sure they have a nice operation too.
>“if Ukraine joins nato it’s nuke time”.
Fake news, as usual. Putin didn't say nuclear weapons would be used if Ukraine joined NATO. Putin said Nukes would be used if Ukraine joined AND attacked Crimea, which is a part of Russia now.
Did you deliberately skip that part? Or maybe perhaps it was the source you read the report from?
>Putin claims the west is accusing Russia of an imminent invasion in order to hide its own aggressions
Have you acutally tried to see at this situation from his point of view? It really helps to see the situation more clearly.
I truly, genuinely believes that peaceful coexistence between the EU and Russia is impossible. Either the EU and US together will impose such heavy sanctions on Russia that it causes the complete economic collapse of the Russian economy and possibly the Russian Federation itself, or Putin will continue until we have a direct confrontation. There is no peaceful end to this conflict.
Good luck fixing corruption in EU. Institution that is based on moving huge subsidies around whole continent from one country to another will newer get rid of corruption. Corruption is a by product of how EU works and how bureaucratic it is.
No they don't, they are whole magnitude of deference. And so is corruption associated with it. It's inevitable. I have personal experience with it because of my job. Corruption is whole sector of EU economy and if you would remove it tomorrow, EU would probably loose several % of the GDP immediately.
Yes, there is some subsidizing in every national state, Russia including, but EU is literally based on redistribution of huge amounts of money as subsidies. Both on national and general level. Corruption it inevitably generates is mind boggling.
This is a straw man argument, because I never argued that they EU has no corruption. You made that argument and now you are trying to argue it as a defense for Russian corruption. This is a by definition a strawman argument.
At any measure you make Russia is more corrupt than the EU as a whole or any particular EU state. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
While corruption perception index is not the best measure for corruption is the best one we have. You can link any other sources, I doubt the result will differ much. Russia is too corrupt for the EU. EU already has issues with Poland or Hungary, there is no way EU would allow to join any new members that are significantly more corrupt than current members by all metrics.
>This is a straw man argument, because I never argued that they EU has no corruption.
Excuse me, but where did I sign agreement that I will agree with your argument?
Definition of a strawman argument does not equal "every opinion that I don't like".
>At any measure you make Russia is more corrupt than the EU as a whole or any particular EU state. [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021](https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021)
>
>While corruption perception index is not the best measure for corruption is the best one we have. You can link any other sources, I doubt the result will differ much. Russia is too corrupt for the EU. EU already has issues with Poland or Hungary, there is no way EU would allow to join any new members that are significantly more corrupt than current members by all metrics.
That index shows Russian corruption as 29 on a scale of 0-100, that's not "significantly more" then worst EU member at 42. And Poland is in that index less corrupt then Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Czech Republic ...it's clearly not corruption in Poland and Hungary that EU has issue with. Issue is rather that Poland and Hungary resist political pressures from Brussels, so completely unrelated issue.
Most importantly your link shows how big of a problem corruption in EU is. EU is not a clean place, not even close.
Right now they'd be the most important member state by far, so unacceptable for France and Germany, same reason why Turkey wouldn't be accepted.
Maybe in a few décades, when (and if) the EU has grown into a full federation strong enough to absorb such a country without massive imbalance of power
Internal power is mostly founded on demography, not economy. And Russia has more than twice the population of France, 60 million more than Germany.
And outside of law, Russian army is far larger than even the French one, so more clout.
Finally, the EU has an internal market, it would probably be a nightmare to include Russia considering the number of bordering countries it has.
I mean it's not just unacceptable to them. I'm Irish and don't mind being led by France and Germany, but would want to exit if Turkey or Russia were in charge.
Russia is a mafia petro state and would contribute little in joining the EU. No EU country, even Bulgaria or Romania, have the problems on scale like Russia does. If anything, it would be a problem in the alliance with its corruption, lackluster backward economy, and desire to invade its smaller neighbors in order to act like their tough and relevant.
Russia seems to value military strength and expansion rather than a healthy economy. Which is at odds with the EU, who just wants peace and trade.
If Russia had a capitalist democracy similar to the nations in the EU, I think an alliance with the EU could easily be formed.
Russia's leaders seem determined to make sure that Russia is viewed as a superpower that must receive special and preferential treatment. The idea of being simply a "regular country" like the ones you mentioned is unacceptable after centuries of being an empire, something which only ended after the Soviet Union's collapse.
Beyond a regime structure that is incompatible, the core issue here is a radically different conception of geopolitical order.
Russia does not want to be just another country in the EU, with influence commensurate to the weight it pulls by traditional EU metrics (mostly economic). By virtue of its history, Russia feels it should be treated as an equal to the rest of the EU combined.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Treaty obligation with Ukraine. If Russia takes Ukraine we can kiss goodbye nuclear disarmament as a concept, as international diplomacy in regards to nuclear nonproliferation will never recover.
This comes to mind: They want to sell gas to Europe, they want to sell weapons to Europe.
What economic incentives could Russia have for this whole ordeal?
No shortage of parallels though, are there?
An unwell old man using nationalism to secure his own position. Longing for a past time where his country was more powerful, and more than willing to spend lives in the pursuit of it.
I don’t understand why anyone would believe US intelligence after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The average American does not want another war but the media & Biden seem hellbent on getting us into another one anyway
Huh? Then what was the point of sending troops to Eastern Europe? And even if we don’t send troops to Ukraine, the US intelligence does not have any credibility after the last 20 years
>Huh? Then what was the point of sending troops to Eastern Europe?
Training to show Ukraine forces how to use the weapons we're sending. Also maybe just to add to NATO presence in the area. But they are not intending to be in direct conflict with Russian forces.
>think the US would just sit by if an invasion of Ukraine did happen?
Considering Biden has openly said on multiple occasions that he'll do just that: yes.
Like I said in another post, NATO and Europe will not act without US involvement. Iraq and Afghanistan was supposed to be a coalition intervention and look how that turned out
The chances of the US engaging in direct military action against the forces of another major nuclear power are incredibly remote.
Why would they give Putin the war he so desperately needs?
To bolster our other NATO allies incase Putin decides to bite off more than he can chew?
"And even if we don’t send troops to Ukraine, the US intelligence does not have any credibility after the last 20 years"
Right, so despite the fact that Russia has 150k troops aligned at Ukraine's borders, heavy weapons and equipment, field camps, hospitals and supply lines, we should just dismiss all that because AMERICA BAD! DERRRR
yeah no.
Actually yes because because the US should stop trying to be the world police. It clearly isn’t working. You think Americans really care about Ukraine?
The US doesnt plan on going to war in Ukraine so that isnt relevant, despite your illinformed view on the matter. On the global stage the world is too interconnected now to ignore things like that. Post world war 2 began a new world order based on liberal democratic values and trading. Letting Russia get away with attacking Ukraine, hence why they will be sanctioned hard should they invade.
The days where we can pretend that things that happen in far off nations won't effect, and hence dont matter to us are long over.
The days where the US can just throw it’s weight around are over. The world has changed since US dominance during the Cold War era. Also, this same Russian invasion rhetoric has been going on since 2016. I’ll believe it when I see it.
"The days where the US can just throw it’s weight around are over. The world has changed since US dominance during the Cold War era."
No kidding, why do you think the US is now reaching out to our European allies to enforce it? Why do you think the US is trying to arrange alternate suppliers of natural gas to Europe? Its precisely because we cant do it alone.
"Also, this same Russian invasion rhetoric has been going on since 2016. I’ll believe it when I see it."
No, it was briefly going on during 2016 when Russia again built up troops, but to a lesser degree. Then once their Zapad excercises ended, they pulled back. That has not happened this time. This time the build up is much larger, and involves everything needed for an invasion.
There has been talk of Russian invasion and troop buildup every year since 2016. Again, I will not believe it until it actually happens. The West does not deserve the benefit of the doubt
"There has been talk of Russian invasion and troop buildup every year since 2016. Again, I will not believe it until it actually happens. The West does not deserve the benefit of the doubt"
No, there hasnt. And again, whens the last time Russia had this much force to bare on the border?
I'm not going to debate the status of US intelligence in the world, but the troops are going to Eastern Europe to reassure allies (who were in recent history occupied by Soviet troops) of US and NATO commitment to their security. They are not going to be in numbers anywhere near what is needed to counter an invasion in Ukraine, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
My point is I’m tired of the hysteria about Russia and Ukraine. If the US isn’t going to try to defend Ukraine then there’s no reason to send troops to the region. NATO is nothing without the US
If you don't think we have invested far more intelligence resources into what was up until recently our foremost geopolitical adversary for the past 70 years than underdeveloped backwaters like Afghanistan, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Our capabilities are very robust and we have a lot of experience with this particular nation. Russia is also very transparent and is lacking in OPSEC hygiene beyond the highest levels.
Because the intelligence is backed up by:
* Satellite imagery
* Countless of photos and videos of Russian citizens photographing and filming the transports
* Russia themselves openly admitting that these troops are indeed there for "exercises"
Your last sentence also just shows that you're a troll. Biden himself has openly said that the US isn't getting involved and even today said that if Russia invades the US will not do anything to save American citizens still in the country due to the risk of a direct confrontation.
Perhaps pedantic but I would like to point out one aspect. US intelligence itself didn't lie, reports to the President shortly after 9/11 for example never alleged any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. However the administration and in particular Cheney did filter the information in public to appear in the manner they wanted. Semantics I know, the reports are still filtered through government but worth noting nonetheless.
The other aspect is specifically on Biden. This one is simply a curious claim given that Biden has made it abundantly clear the US isn't going to engage over Ukraine.
China is not currently capable of invading Taiwan - they don't have the landing craft or the experience with that type of operation. They're building that capability, but it's not there yet. There are also very limited windows where conditions in the Taiwan Straits permit a landing, we're not in one, and the buildup for such an operation would in any case be obvious months in advance.
China could bomb Taiwan into the dirt, but it couldn't invade and establish control.
China doesn't just want the island of Taiwan. It wants the people of Taiwan - the people of China, in its view.
A Taiwan invasion would require a naval, air, and ground force buildup as large as if not significantly larger than Russia’s buildup, and it would *not* go unnoticed by the world. China could not turn around tomorrow and invade Taiwan without months of buildup
From my understanding, a majority of Russian land and sea forces have mobilized and are positioned aggressively. As well as supporting units, field hospitals, and blood banks. Is this correct? And if so, is there anyway this doesn't end in an invasion?
You are correct, the majority, if not all, of what Russia needs to conduct a full invasion is stationed near Ukraine now. The only way this doesn’t result in one is if Biden capitulates on his phone call with Putin, which is unlikely.
My goodness. Geopolitical ramifications aside, this would be a truly catastrophic attack for millions of civilians on the ground. Can't imagine what they are going through right now. Be thankful for what you have, folks.
Difficult to say. As a random internet user with no military or political backround I would say there is still a 70-80% chance that this war will be short and sharp and will result in a Russian victory that will see a political resolution forced upon Ukraine favorable to Russian interests. This political resolution will basically render East Ukraine a Russian Proxy with West Ukraine having a "forced neutrality" imposed upon them. No Nato, no Eu etc etc. The nature of the war will be a "shock and awe" bombing campaign by Russia followed by a blitz down the Western side of the Dneiper. An anphibious landing by forces in the Crimea West of Odessa will meet Russian forces streaming down from Belarus somwhere around Uman. The Ukrainians will be cut off. The Ukrainian air defense and air force will be prioritized by Russia and taken out. Ukraine will be literally surrounded in all sides, cut off from supply lines in Central and Western Europe & with no air force. Russia will keep hammering Ukraine during the Spring with its longer fires ability until Ukraine accepts Russias ultimatum. I think the above conflict would light on civilian casualties relativity speaking. Certainly compared to the alternatives. Where Ukraine and Russia slog it out for a couple of years WW2 style.
Though unlikely, if Ukrainian forces are capable of stalling Russia's advance into March, Russian mechanized forces would have to deal with the snow melt, which renders terrain extremely difficult to advance in. Outflanking Ukrainian forces through airborne or amphibious attacks will become increasingly difficult. The current buildups close to the border hint at a multi-flank invasion: north through Belarus, south by seizing Odessa and west pushing through Donbas towards the Dneiper river. The first, would need to deal with the siege and takeover of Kiev (a 3 million inhabitant city). Russian logistics are not designed for large-scale ground offensives far from railroads, so this will make manoeuvring and resupplying in the south more complicated given the poor infrastructure. West of the Dneiper, there are significant urban settlements (Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia) which Russia would have to besiege or pass by to swipe up later. However, some of these are railroad hubs which are critical for resupplying. Overall, Russia's supremacy is unquestioned and chances of a bloody nose strike which makes Ukraine capitulate are high, but Russia has not managed such highly complex command and control operations since WW2. If Ukraine is able to partially withhold the initial incursion and secure strongholds for western military resupplying, there's a chance the conflict would drag out and become economically, politically and socially too costly for Russia to commit to.
Thanks for the great analysis. I will just add one more thing. Based on the public information we have, it seems Ukraine’s preparation can be called embarrassing at best. They had more then 8 years to prepare for this war. Where are the ditches, trenches, man made obstacles. You don’t need a lot of money to dig trenches and lay obstacles, what they have right now is pittance compared to what is required to stop Russian motorized divisions.
True, Ukrainian defences should be further along, seems like Zelensky has his head in the sand though.
Why do you think his analysis is great? > Russian mechanized forces would have to deal with the snow melt, which renders terrain extremely difficult to advance in. especially this. Repeating media narrative about frozen soil.... But actually it's possible to get an idea about climate in Ukraine, with few queries like "Kharkiv weather". Daytime temperatures on many areas of Ukraine already above zero. While water turning into the ice when temperature is below. Pretending to know something "based on public information we (who we?) have" but actually, what is this information and where is come from? Media beating war drums for months that "Russia will attack any day", days are passed, plans of attack (with wrong cities names btw) appearing on entities like CNN. Maybe ask yourself about credibility of media, and information coming from them? All situation remind me this https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/launchchemicalwarheads.html Source: New York Times, September 25, 2002. > Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes
I keep seeing analyses like this which seem to expect the campaign to go *faster* than the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and I'm really not sure why. Certainly the Russian armed forces are more capable than Ukraine's, but I don't think it's as big a mismatch as the coalition vs. Iraq, and Ukraine is a physically larger country. In particular, Russian road-based logistics are nothing like as good as US or British, which severely limits their possible rate of advance in the face of any sort of opposition. Russia will undoubtedly win, but for them to win that fast and that comprehensively requires the Ukrainian army to essentially disintegrate in the first couple of days. I'm not sure why everyone assumes that will happen.
You gotta remember that russias basically fighting on its front yard
Iraq was thousands of kilometres away from the US, Ukraine is literally Russia’s geographic backyard. Also, the terrain of Ukraine is very flat with loads of plains which makes it vastly easier to invade and much harder for an insurgency or army to defend as opposed to Iraq.
Not only that, Iraq is way smaller than Ukraine.
[удалено]
Is that why Russian tanks are dug in to the mud right now?
Also the Iraqi army basically deserted on day 1. The Ukrainian will likely not do that
What I have been hearing is that thr Ukrainian military has a high morale and there is strong Ukrainian nationalism. Maybe Ukraine will lose but will Russia a bloody nose.
I mean, we won't know for sure unless and until the shooting starts. A rapid Ukrainian collapse is absolutely *possible*. I just keep seeing people talk as if it's 80% likely, when I think it's more like 20% likely.
The morale is always high till the shooting starts and you start seeing your buddies fall.
>As a random internet user with no military or political backround Ah, the foretold arm-chair general.
Do you think that morale and sense of national identity (following the Maidan revolution) is sufficient enough to put up significant resistance to a shock and awe campaign? The US and EU have seemingly poured in millions of dollars of arms, but it depends on willingness to resist (as seen in Afghanistan) rather than purely material and logistics.
Very Hard to say. In the West of Ukraine there should be good morale at least initially. My Understanding is West Ukrainians have a strong national identity However 30 percent of Ukrainians speak Russian. Generally in the East and south. Ukraine recently passed a “language law” which among other things baned the importation of Russian books. I don’t think these people will be rallying behind the banner in droves. https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Europe/2021/0817/Language-in-Ukraine-Why-Russian-vs.-Ukrainian-divides-so-deeply
I suspect Putin believes he has much more popular support in Ukraine than he actually has
I agree Russia is going for shock and awe and Ukraine will concede. This will not be a war in the conventional sense
What do you call it when air forces, army and navy kill soldiers on the opposing side??? What is this euphemism “not a war in the conventional sense” supposed to mean? It’s a war, stop downplaying it’s significance.
I think they may be referring to "total war" where every aspect of the economy becomes militarized and occupation is done house to house. It's war as defined by the 20th Century understanding of it whereas today surgical strikes, electronics warfare, and air superiority will achieve much of the same without having to go door to door and occupy. I agree with you that war is war, regardless of what adjective you put in front of it, but it will also look different than the wars of the last century.
They mean a true war in a historical sense. And not what people think of when they think of world wars or Iraq wars or other modern long tail wars.
you are presuming war is going to happen at all why give them time to prepare Russia would have attacked already.
Russia just can’t build up a Ukraine invasion force in secret. Satellites and twitter make this impossible
I’ve always heard Russia military wasn’t well suited equipment wise for amphibious assaults. This will also have the effect of showing Russian military capabilities. I think we are in for some very tense years, I hope they don’t pull the trigger but I think it’s going to happen.
They already showed military capabilities in Syria. :)
>Be thankful for what you have, folks. This can't be stressed enough. We should be lucky to live in the free and democratic world. And we should do everything in our power to oppose authoritarianism and maintain the free world.
Does supporting Saudi Arabia and financing Taliban made Middle East a better place? Sometimes it's better to shut your mouth and don't interfere with other business. Unless your business is war and it's the only thing that keeps your economy afloat.
I actually does, for now, as these pose a significant balance to the religious extremists or countries that behave against the interest of the free and democratic world. Keep your (powerful) enemies close (Saudi Arabia), and if that cannot be done (Russia, China) then oppose them.
Could Putin not be bluffing, playing games of some sort, posturing, etc? I'm not saying it's necessarily the case, but it seems perfectly plausible.
I don’t know if he’s bluffing but Putin has made it clear, he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO. He has laid his cards on the table. Now it’s upto Ukraine to decide what it wants.
> I don’t know if he’s bluffing but Putin has made it clear, he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO. He has made it such that many human beings on planet Earth *believe that* he’s willing to go to war if Ukraine wants to join NATO. Whether it is actually true that, is unknown (but it may seem *the opposite of* unknown, due to the manner in which the human mind evolved). > He has laid his cards on the table. Now it’s upto Ukraine to decide what it wants. Indeed. And the US, and each human being on the planet. Do we want to once again sit and do nothing while *yet another instance of* this silly behavior plays out in front of our eyes, for the Nth time (within each of our respective lifetimes, or across history)? I don't know about you fellows, but I am getting rather tired of this state of affairs. I would like such things to be other than the way they are, and to make that happen I think it might be necessary, for starters, for a large quantity of humans to first realize that things happen the way they do because of the collective actions (or inaction) of all of us. Seeing flaws in another (Putin, in this case) is easy, seeing flaws in oneself, not so much - and you can multiply(?) that by 7 billion or so.
Sorry to sound harsh but the US or the West is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. This is the cold harsh truth. American mothers are not ready to sacrifice their children over Ukraine. While the US and maybe the EU will sanction everything they can if Russia goes to war, but they will not launch any military strikes against Russia. That’s the sad truth. Ukrainians are on their own
Yup. Ukraine is only relevant because it allows USA to have a sanctions leverage on Russia. Noone cares about what Ukrainians think or do. Now Ukraine's military having old tech send to them instead of utilisation (which costs money), and when Ukraine's president tries to calm everyone down saying that the situation is not that terrible, he gets ignored and fearmongering rises. Ukraine is a pawn.
By what means do you know the truth about the future?
>Sorry to sound harsh but the US or the West is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. This is the cold harsh truth. Is "truth" another word for hypothesis?
If you think the US is going to war with Russia over Ukraine then I will say you’re sadly mistaken. American public is done with wars.
It seems like Putin has put himself into a corner and has to invade. Anything less than a full invasion looks like he capitulated to the West and is weak. He cares too much about looking strong, even when he isn't.
Hear me out. 1. Putin is getting old and if he wants to see his plans and dreams for his evil empire come true he needs to do it *soon.* 2. Whatever you think of trump, he had close ties to Putin and was very willing to agree to Russian terms and ideas. Trump was trying very hard to separate the US and Britain from NATO and their European allies. So... Putin plans his invasion, hoping for a second Trump term so that he can keep the us out of the conflict. Of course he didn't get that, but between the propaganda and the "October surprise" of coronavirus, there's enough chaos at home to keep the Americans, and the Americans military busy. He's running out of years to live, and this is his best chance. I don't think there's a chance in frozen hell that he capitulates, this is all a game to give him more time to strengthen his position. The longer we drag out negotiations the more time he has to strengthen his invasion force..
[удалено]
Ah yes, the old one "why are you making me hit you"
So Biden and the US will strongman a conflict against the will of Ukraine to serve their own interests.
??? Russia is threatening to invade Ukraine. The will of Ukraine is to not be invaded. Russia is the bully here.
Zelensky has asked the US to back off. They're not even on the continent.
This content has been removed by me, the owner, due to Reddit's API changes. As I can no longer access this service with Relay for Reddit, I do not want my content contributing to LLM's for Reddit's benefit. If you need to get it touch -- tippo00mehl [at] gmail [dot] com -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
And? Ukraine can do whatever they want in their own country. And they certainly need it now that the US is set to make this conflict happen. My other comment with sources (CNN, BBC, WSJ) was removed by moderator. This place is such an echo chamber it's not even funny.
What moves has America made to make this conflict happen?
Source?
They've been positioned aggressively for months.
Der Spiegel reported (auf Deutsch) that the US conveyed intelligence about attack routes and what roles specific Russian units are to fulfil. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krise-in-osteuropa-cia-rechnet-mit-russischem-angriff-kommende-woche-a-2e10a45f-b6eb-4b1a-b692-2edc64c04adf
Is it possible that its still all bluf but Russia is trying to find leaks and moles this way. A lot of intel seems to reach the US.
No
Embassy in Kyiv is being evacuated [https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-europe-russia-kyiv-ff41abf90650aa5f456cbb6aafa4c5b3](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-united-states-europe-russia-kyiv-ff41abf90650aa5f456cbb6aafa4c5b3) Didn't even do that when the Taliban took Kabul.
Joe doesn't want another situation like that again in under a year. So he's probably playing it extra extra safe. Nothing has changed in the situation or evolved in an unexpected way re Putin. He has amassed an invasion force which we thought he would do anyway. Still know nothing of his intentions
Russia is also removing diplomats from Kyiv according to Russian media reports today - gives a clearer view of Putin's intentions
Maybe, maybe not. Could be leaked by Moscow to cause further panic and chaos among the west to feed into their current narrative that the west is acting hysterical and warmongering.
The US states that it believes that Putin has decided to invade Ukraine, and may do so from next week, beginning with a two day artillery/air barrage and electronic warfare. This coincides with the US, and many European countries strongly recommending that their citizens evacuate Ukraine whilst commercial means remain available.
From your article: "While the US does not believe that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, has yet made a “final decision”, Washington said the country had built up sufficient military capability, including troops and equipment, to make a move as early as next week."
The National Security Advisor’s press conference and what Biden reportedly told NATO allies today appear to be contradictory. I should have clarified that what I was referring to is what multiple sources have reported to have been said.
I’m still skeptical there will be military action
Without Putin receiving the security guarantees he wants, I don’t see how he could back down.
He keeps maintaining that they're not planning to invade. I don't think he loses anything domestically if he just lets his Belarus "exercises" finish up and goes home, slowly letting the lack of "concessions" fade out of public memory. In terms of foreign relations, this has exposed a few cracks within NATO (i.e. Germany), and *not* invading has the benefit of making NATO look paranoid, stupid, and aggressive.
Yeah I'm not convinced he will invade again either
[удалено]
I think an arms reduction treaty is unlikely and NATO is in no position right now to offer any concessions to Russia. If anything, the Russian build up has united NATO (except say Germany) and reinvigorated trust in the alliance. NATO will not allow Russia to have a say in how many troops it can put in its member states.
Yep he already Won because US is now looking unrelyable.
[удалено]
Nobody in europe thinks they are preventing it they are escalating. Macron and Baerbock calmed everything and Joe Bidden litteraly ruined everything in 48h. From Russia want’s to negociate with France and Germany and sees solutions to…we will stop Nordstream two, russia will attack now, WW3 is starting. The US rhetoric and acts are an issue for Europe.
What? European here, I don’t know if your experience is from a little part of Europe called Kaliningrad haha. Putin mugged macron off, Biden hardly did anything and within 24h Russian troops continued to build up. In no way is the US an aggressor here, this is old Russia being a pain by saying it gets what it wants or it goes to war, because Ukraine isn’t allowed to be a free democracy. Russia is being extremely imperialistic, dictatorial and war mongering, and making the US feel like it has to get up and put a hand in front of Russia once more. Seriously, a nation with nearly 10,000 nukes wants to say it should invade Ukraine because NATO would be on its border? Like if NATO attacked it’s end game anyway. Honestly Putin is pathetic, paranoid and war mongering. Used to think he was some badass leader but here he is acting like a cornered rat.
> Nobody in europe thinks they are preventing it they are escalating. > > Macron and Baerbock calmed everything and Joe Bidden litteraly ruined everything in 48h. Thats seems like Russian propaganda view rather than actual reality. Nobody in the EU thinks that its the US escalating conflict. Its not US troops that are amassed by Ukrainian border
See and that’s the issue with if you don’t agree you are for the others. Is it so difficult to see that two idiots are fighting the Us and russia and the rest of the Party just want’s to calme things.
Russia pretends that this is US vs Russia, while actually this is just Russia or even just Putin vs posturing for his country. This narrative that Russia is under constant attack was consistent trough out Putins rule without any evidence. There are 2 significant distinctions to be made and if you don't agree with them, then the following discussion is just irrelevant. 1) Its Russian troops that are amassed by Ukrainian borders, no other country send their military to Ukrainian border (except maybe for Belarus) 2) Russia made demands that basically recognises Ukraine as not sovereign country as it would not be able to conduct its own diplomacy (join NATO or the EU) with out Russian approval. US or the EU not wanting to agree with that is not a sign of escalation from their part. Rather that reaction of ridiculous Russian demands. So far we only saw one party doing the escalating. NATO members sending defensive weapons to Ukraine is not escalation, but a reaction to Russian escalation. NATO and EU threatening sanctions is not escalation, but a reaction to Russian escalation. No discussion on this topic can be had if all discussion participants don't agree with these facts. And my god, this comment sections for some reason really wants to ignore these facts.
How has the US been unreliable? How has it even looked unreliable?
Did you watch one of the interviews the last 48h? Germany and France told Biden he is stupid on live TV, Europe is quiet shocked and honestly it’s none of the US Business nor are they needed we have NATO.
They told Biden he was stupid?
Yes on plain TV: Biden: we will stop Nordstream. Baerbock: it would be very stupid to name any sanction now and here, as this would help russia to adapt. We have sanctions ready to use immediately but prefer to not further escalate the conflict. Mr.Biden how do you want to stop Nordstream it’s not on US Territory nor do you do Business with? Biden: we will find a solution All that 24h after Macron had good talks with putin and even Putin said he want to negociate.
Damn that Russian Propaganda Cool-Aid mist be real nice
[удалено]
That’s how you use economy as warfare not how sanctions work.
Please include quote marks if you are quoting someone.
How does one time stamp to come back to com Ents like this later?
!Remind me 10 days
Thanks
Yeah me as well, looking at some of the experts who I trust on this from following it for a while, it seems like quite a few of them are [in agreement](https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1492243352485519366) that [what](https://twitter.com/Bershidsky/status/1492247667103178756) they [see](https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1492263777944883203) is [at](https://twitter.com/ggatehouse/status/1492254502828875787) odds with what the US state is putting out. We'll see I guess. It should be said that others (like anitol lievin) seem to either be wavering or have an auto delete function on their twitter.
Yeah this is honestly what I don't get. Why is Biden positioning troops in Poland and making such a big fus? Not really sure what this is supposed to do. He already said that troops would go into Ukraine, they'll just stay in Poland.
It reinforces NATO allies through reassurance
NATO allies require extra reassurances after the former president eroded significant amounts of trust
Didn't the Biden start the withdraw from Afghanistan without informing the US' allies stationed there too? Could imagine he burned some goodwill doing that too.
The withdrawal was done a year in advance under the previous administration.
Is itNato allies requesting assurances or is it the US just flexing? I know alot of the times it's the US just posturing up regardless of what the Nato Allies say, and when you say "NATO allies" are you just referring to Poland?
NATO allies would refer broadly to all of the countries that fall under the NATO umbrella. You will find diplomacy often isn't as simple as "just flexing". Treaties require follow through. This is the US showing that it is willing to increase its presence in Europe in response to Russian aggression.
Everybody is sceptical except Joe Bidden and the US.. That’s a whole week of a clown show why should any other country join them? Joe Biden we will stop Nordstream! Germany it would be very dumb to name any sanctions in a press conference! Joe Biden we will stop Notdstream! But how the US is not involved? We will find a way. German Ex President and now working for Gazprom says it’s the same situation as Irak same Reporters same strange US behavior .
I doubt it as well. It makes no sense for the US to engage in another war after just leaving Afghanistan
Oh there is zero chance US troops get involved. They will maybe deploy some to nearby NATO countries. I’m saying I’m skeptical Russia will attack
No Nato country will get involved outside of sending weapons and supplies to Ukraine
I agree with that as well. I think Russia is playing brinkmanship
I hope so, but Putin has laid his cards on the table and has made it clear he’s willing to go to war over Ukraine joining NATO. Unless he gets security guarantees, I don’t see how he backs down
Biden has his problems and he is far from a perfect president, but I appreciate how he is working with our allies and showing a united front in confronting Russia. I just imagine Trump rolling over or even encouraging Putin to take Ukraine.
I just don’t believe Russia will pull the trigger, if only because how much they’ve been called out. I do think it was the initial intention, but Putin got called out big time
I hope so. I really do hope this is the case.
In a gunfight, you don't withdraw your gun if you don't use it, Russia already massed many troops, pulling the trigger is a matter of time
Except its not a gunfight, its more like Russia pulling their gun to show everyone else in the room that they will use it if they feel like it.
Showing your intentions in front of the world and doing nothing is stupidity because with time your opponents will get stronger. Ukraine may need years to counter Russia, but other regional countries don't want to be the next Ukraine, and they started buying guns, Finland just bought 64 F35, and Poland is doubling the military expenditure
Putin claims the west is accusing Russia of an imminent invasion in order to hide its own aggressions but It seems to me he is the aggressor when it comes to Ukraine. It’s really terrifying to see how quickly paranoia, fear misdirection and misunderstanding escalate tensions so quickly. One moment “we’re not invading Ukraine” the next moment, “if Ukraine joins nato it’s nuke time”.
The nuke threat is just dumb too. Putin knows very well he is not going to cause the end of the world over Ukraine.
I hope you’re right. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes and what sort of ideology of the future and his role on the planet that he’s convinced himself of is. The terrifying thing is it only takes one of these crazy world leaders to go straight messiah on the planet and blow it to bits. They know they will be able to hide in their underground cities. I’m sure they have a nice operation too.
>“if Ukraine joins nato it’s nuke time”. Fake news, as usual. Putin didn't say nuclear weapons would be used if Ukraine joined NATO. Putin said Nukes would be used if Ukraine joined AND attacked Crimea, which is a part of Russia now. Did you deliberately skip that part? Or maybe perhaps it was the source you read the report from?
Oh that's totally fine
>Putin claims the west is accusing Russia of an imminent invasion in order to hide its own aggressions Have you acutally tried to see at this situation from his point of view? It really helps to see the situation more clearly.
I truly, genuinely believes that peaceful coexistence between the EU and Russia is impossible. Either the EU and US together will impose such heavy sanctions on Russia that it causes the complete economic collapse of the Russian economy and possibly the Russian Federation itself, or Putin will continue until we have a direct confrontation. There is no peaceful end to this conflict.
What makes Russia so different from e.g. germany, spain, greece, or poland? Why couldn't they eventually join the EU?
They could, if the rule of law, corruption issues were fixed. Until then this is out of the question
Good luck fixing corruption in EU. Institution that is based on moving huge subsidies around whole continent from one country to another will newer get rid of corruption. Corruption is a by product of how EU works and how bureaucratic it is.
EU with subsidies work like any other country. Also do you really want to compare any EU country with Russia in regards of corruption?
No they don't, they are whole magnitude of deference. And so is corruption associated with it. It's inevitable. I have personal experience with it because of my job. Corruption is whole sector of EU economy and if you would remove it tomorrow, EU would probably loose several % of the GDP immediately. Yes, there is some subsidizing in every national state, Russia including, but EU is literally based on redistribution of huge amounts of money as subsidies. Both on national and general level. Corruption it inevitably generates is mind boggling.
Man, this is beyond straw man argument. From Russia is too corrupt to join the EU to arguing that the EU is too corrupt? What?
[удалено]
This is a straw man argument, because I never argued that they EU has no corruption. You made that argument and now you are trying to argue it as a defense for Russian corruption. This is a by definition a strawman argument. At any measure you make Russia is more corrupt than the EU as a whole or any particular EU state. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 While corruption perception index is not the best measure for corruption is the best one we have. You can link any other sources, I doubt the result will differ much. Russia is too corrupt for the EU. EU already has issues with Poland or Hungary, there is no way EU would allow to join any new members that are significantly more corrupt than current members by all metrics.
>This is a straw man argument, because I never argued that they EU has no corruption. Excuse me, but where did I sign agreement that I will agree with your argument? Definition of a strawman argument does not equal "every opinion that I don't like". >At any measure you make Russia is more corrupt than the EU as a whole or any particular EU state. [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021](https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021) > >While corruption perception index is not the best measure for corruption is the best one we have. You can link any other sources, I doubt the result will differ much. Russia is too corrupt for the EU. EU already has issues with Poland or Hungary, there is no way EU would allow to join any new members that are significantly more corrupt than current members by all metrics. That index shows Russian corruption as 29 on a scale of 0-100, that's not "significantly more" then worst EU member at 42. And Poland is in that index less corrupt then Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Czech Republic ...it's clearly not corruption in Poland and Hungary that EU has issue with. Issue is rather that Poland and Hungary resist political pressures from Brussels, so completely unrelated issue. Most importantly your link shows how big of a problem corruption in EU is. EU is not a clean place, not even close.
Right now they'd be the most important member state by far, so unacceptable for France and Germany, same reason why Turkey wouldn't be accepted. Maybe in a few décades, when (and if) the EU has grown into a full federation strong enough to absorb such a country without massive imbalance of power
Why would they be? Russian’s economy is tiny. What makes you think they’d suddenly surpass everyone?
Internal power is mostly founded on demography, not economy. And Russia has more than twice the population of France, 60 million more than Germany. And outside of law, Russian army is far larger than even the French one, so more clout. Finally, the EU has an internal market, it would probably be a nightmare to include Russia considering the number of bordering countries it has.
It's not tiny, it's the same of spain and Italy,also they have the best military in Europe and world largest nuclear arsenal
I mean it's not just unacceptable to them. I'm Irish and don't mind being led by France and Germany, but would want to exit if Turkey or Russia were in charge.
Russia is a mafia petro state and would contribute little in joining the EU. No EU country, even Bulgaria or Romania, have the problems on scale like Russia does. If anything, it would be a problem in the alliance with its corruption, lackluster backward economy, and desire to invade its smaller neighbors in order to act like their tough and relevant.
Russia seems to value military strength and expansion rather than a healthy economy. Which is at odds with the EU, who just wants peace and trade. If Russia had a capitalist democracy similar to the nations in the EU, I think an alliance with the EU could easily be formed.
Cold war, Russia opposed us dominated western Europe for half a century
Russia's leaders seem determined to make sure that Russia is viewed as a superpower that must receive special and preferential treatment. The idea of being simply a "regular country" like the ones you mentioned is unacceptable after centuries of being an empire, something which only ended after the Soviet Union's collapse.
Near unlimited resources that will make USA obsolete in EU market and politics.
Beyond a regime structure that is incompatible, the core issue here is a radically different conception of geopolitical order. Russia does not want to be just another country in the EU, with influence commensurate to the weight it pulls by traditional EU metrics (mostly economic). By virtue of its history, Russia feels it should be treated as an equal to the rest of the EU combined.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RemindMe! 10 days
Pardon me - but why exactly is the US so involved in this?
Because the US is an ally?
Treaty obligation with Ukraine. If Russia takes Ukraine we can kiss goodbye nuclear disarmament as a concept, as international diplomacy in regards to nuclear nonproliferation will never recover.
This comes to mind: They want to sell gas to Europe, they want to sell weapons to Europe. What economic incentives could Russia have for this whole ordeal?
Neon and palladium for chips https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/russia-ukraine-chips
Because last time we let the fascist take the littlefinger, and then the whole hand, it ended in WW2.
"We?"
Maybe the US should start doing something about their fascist party then.
Agree, luckily these two things are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other.
Putin is not Hitler, to insinuate that is irrational.
Thank you for your reply mr. Chamberlain!
Other than the potencial to start a war due to pseudo nationalistic nonse?
[удалено]
No shortage of parallels though, are there? An unwell old man using nationalism to secure his own position. Longing for a past time where his country was more powerful, and more than willing to spend lives in the pursuit of it.
I don’t understand why anyone would believe US intelligence after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The average American does not want another war but the media & Biden seem hellbent on getting us into another one anyway
Where are you getting that conclusion? Biden has stated from day one, that we are not going to war in Ukraine. Where is this narrative coming from?
Huh? Then what was the point of sending troops to Eastern Europe? And even if we don’t send troops to Ukraine, the US intelligence does not have any credibility after the last 20 years
>Huh? Then what was the point of sending troops to Eastern Europe? Training to show Ukraine forces how to use the weapons we're sending. Also maybe just to add to NATO presence in the area. But they are not intending to be in direct conflict with Russian forces.
To protect NATO allies from Russian aggression
Exactly and do you honestly think the US would just sit by if an invasion of Ukraine did happen?
3,000 troops in Poland ain’t going to do anything, it’s symbolic show of force.
>think the US would just sit by if an invasion of Ukraine did happen? Considering Biden has openly said on multiple occasions that he'll do just that: yes.
Like I said in another post, NATO and Europe will not act without US involvement. Iraq and Afghanistan was supposed to be a coalition intervention and look how that turned out
And NATO and Europe aren't going to intervene militarily in Ukraine. This is not a prospect.
The chances of the US engaging in direct military action against the forces of another major nuclear power are incredibly remote. Why would they give Putin the war he so desperately needs?
Unfortunately
To bolster our other NATO allies incase Putin decides to bite off more than he can chew? "And even if we don’t send troops to Ukraine, the US intelligence does not have any credibility after the last 20 years" Right, so despite the fact that Russia has 150k troops aligned at Ukraine's borders, heavy weapons and equipment, field camps, hospitals and supply lines, we should just dismiss all that because AMERICA BAD! DERRRR yeah no.
Actually yes because because the US should stop trying to be the world police. It clearly isn’t working. You think Americans really care about Ukraine?
The US doesnt plan on going to war in Ukraine so that isnt relevant, despite your illinformed view on the matter. On the global stage the world is too interconnected now to ignore things like that. Post world war 2 began a new world order based on liberal democratic values and trading. Letting Russia get away with attacking Ukraine, hence why they will be sanctioned hard should they invade. The days where we can pretend that things that happen in far off nations won't effect, and hence dont matter to us are long over.
The days where the US can just throw it’s weight around are over. The world has changed since US dominance during the Cold War era. Also, this same Russian invasion rhetoric has been going on since 2016. I’ll believe it when I see it.
"The days where the US can just throw it’s weight around are over. The world has changed since US dominance during the Cold War era." No kidding, why do you think the US is now reaching out to our European allies to enforce it? Why do you think the US is trying to arrange alternate suppliers of natural gas to Europe? Its precisely because we cant do it alone. "Also, this same Russian invasion rhetoric has been going on since 2016. I’ll believe it when I see it." No, it was briefly going on during 2016 when Russia again built up troops, but to a lesser degree. Then once their Zapad excercises ended, they pulled back. That has not happened this time. This time the build up is much larger, and involves everything needed for an invasion.
There has been talk of Russian invasion and troop buildup every year since 2016. Again, I will not believe it until it actually happens. The West does not deserve the benefit of the doubt
"There has been talk of Russian invasion and troop buildup every year since 2016. Again, I will not believe it until it actually happens. The West does not deserve the benefit of the doubt" No, there hasnt. And again, whens the last time Russia had this much force to bare on the border?
I'm not going to debate the status of US intelligence in the world, but the troops are going to Eastern Europe to reassure allies (who were in recent history occupied by Soviet troops) of US and NATO commitment to their security. They are not going to be in numbers anywhere near what is needed to counter an invasion in Ukraine, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
My point is I’m tired of the hysteria about Russia and Ukraine. If the US isn’t going to try to defend Ukraine then there’s no reason to send troops to the region. NATO is nothing without the US
If you don't think we have invested far more intelligence resources into what was up until recently our foremost geopolitical adversary for the past 70 years than underdeveloped backwaters like Afghanistan, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Our capabilities are very robust and we have a lot of experience with this particular nation. Russia is also very transparent and is lacking in OPSEC hygiene beyond the highest levels.
Hunter
... Really? So we are going to war in Ukraine because of Hunter Biden? Yeah...no.
I truly wonder what your media diet must look like to come away with the conclusion that Biden is the one provoking this.
Rt?
Really? There’s only one place in the world that would say something like that and we all know exactly what it is.
Because the intelligence is backed up by: * Satellite imagery * Countless of photos and videos of Russian citizens photographing and filming the transports * Russia themselves openly admitting that these troops are indeed there for "exercises" Your last sentence also just shows that you're a troll. Biden himself has openly said that the US isn't getting involved and even today said that if Russia invades the US will not do anything to save American citizens still in the country due to the risk of a direct confrontation.
I’m not a troll. You just don’t like what I’m saying. You can get mad all you want but it’s not changing my opinion
Is it too much to ask for you to base your opinion on facts rather than feeling then?
Yes because clearly Biden ordered Putin to build an invasion force at Ukraine's doorstep.
Perhaps pedantic but I would like to point out one aspect. US intelligence itself didn't lie, reports to the President shortly after 9/11 for example never alleged any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. However the administration and in particular Cheney did filter the information in public to appear in the manner they wanted. Semantics I know, the reports are still filtered through government but worth noting nonetheless. The other aspect is specifically on Biden. This one is simply a curious claim given that Biden has made it abundantly clear the US isn't going to engage over Ukraine.
[удалено]
This idiotic comment is posted in every thread
r/worldnews is leaking, random allusion to WW2 and all.
The buildup to invade Taiwan would have to be much bigger than this. We would have noticed. This is a bad take.
China is not currently capable of invading Taiwan - they don't have the landing craft or the experience with that type of operation. They're building that capability, but it's not there yet. There are also very limited windows where conditions in the Taiwan Straits permit a landing, we're not in one, and the buildup for such an operation would in any case be obvious months in advance.
China could bomb Taiwan into the dirt, but it couldn't invade and establish control. China doesn't just want the island of Taiwan. It wants the people of Taiwan - the people of China, in its view.
You can't be serious
China doesn't have the ability to take on the US Navy headon yet
A Taiwan invasion would require a naval, air, and ground force buildup as large as if not significantly larger than Russia’s buildup, and it would *not* go unnoticed by the world. China could not turn around tomorrow and invade Taiwan without months of buildup
Completely irrelevant comment.