"Russia is preparing to INVADE Ukraine by the end of January" Topic

So Putin says the Biden admin was being hysterical:

The Russian government claimed on Tuesday that several military units have completed "scheduled drills" along border with Ukraine and will now return to their permanent bases, bringing their armor and artillery with them.

Russian officials taunted the Biden administration by claiming the redeployment "humiliated" Western war hysterics, while Ukrainian and NATO military officials said they did not see any immediate sign of Russian forces actually pulling back from the border.

I'm sure you'll hear the Biden crowd crow about how their tough posturing made Putin BLINK! I tell you!

Which side do you think more believable? Little bit of both, Biden or Putin?

link

I think Biden did everything he could to make sure the rest of the world knows who the warmonger bad guy is, there is no positive PR for Putin and no credible rationale to invade, if there ever was one.

Biden portrayed the cost in lives as being big time, laid the blame on Putin, warned him it would cost him economically, told the Russian people it's not their fault. NATO, while still basically kind of a house of cards, showed some life and unity of purpose and looks sort of revived. .
I am not sure there was any better way to handle this….

But this is not over. Putin is never to be trusted, anything could happen.

The real sides are America/NATO and Putin. . Putin is way more unbelievable – KGB.

Yes, we do not want to be repeat offenders!

No we do not ! 😁👮‍♀️

From Military.com : 101 heads to Europe !!! 🦅

link

Legion. I will bow to those with more knowledge. Does deploying elements of The 82nd, 101st and others, as well as whatever more we deploy, offset the dollar savings of withdrawing from Afghanistan? Curious if our dollar savings were short lived.

How concerned are powers and potentates like Putin and Xi when the US military is obsessed with non-critical issues??

The U.S. military has dedicated nearly 6 million hours since the start of the Biden administration on "developing, preparing, delivering, attending or assessing" new plans to address climate change , diversity , and extremism .

link

Climate change is a huge threat to western civilisation, diversity is an effective way to use all available tools, and extremists in military forces are a threat to society.
What is your question?

Climate change is a huge threat to western civilisation

Is it? And if it is, do you mobilize your tanks and send them against the sea like a heavily armed King Canute and force the seas to stop rising?? Will you use the wings of your bombers and fighters to shade the planet?

link

This is not one thing or the other. It's a faulty argument. You are both right and we can do two things at once, IMO.

Curious if our dollar savings were short lived.

No A'stan overall was much more expensive. We don't have the costs of arming, training, etc., of the ANA & ANP. To say the least …

Ok. Thanks

Over 20 years about 2.4 trillion for Afghanistan. I'm sure no one really knows exactly. We carry a lot, but not all the cost of NATO.

A Must Read Report On Ukraine

link

PDF link

Armand

I was actually thinking the cost per day at the end. Does the costs of deploying the current troops, etc. to Eastern Europe compare to day to day cost in Afghanistan in the end days.

With all the talk on climate change in here. Curious, which climate change scientists should I believe? 🤔

The ones who say it's good, or the ones who say it's bad?
Almost like the science of mask usage.
Whose science should I believe?

Subject: U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds | Reuters


link

I was actually thinking the cost per day at the end. Does the costs of deploying the current troops, etc. to Eastern Europe compare to day to day cost in Afghanistan in the end days.

No Europe is not a failed third world "country". In a civil war between various tribes, factions, etc.

Europe has a much better infrastructure, etc. We have support one way or another from those nations, e.g. Germany, Poland, etc. A'stan you have to bring everything with you, etc. You have almost moved back to operating in the "stone age". Bagram, a former USSR large airbase was our best location in the nation. Good airfields, some USSR structures & defense, etc. But yet is was abandoned before the US withdrawal. Again a major/massive error.

Regardless, deploying troops anywhere is good training & experience. The cost is worth it, generally. But I still believe day to day cost in A'stan was much more expensive than deploying to Europe.

Plus troops are going to get paid whether a Ft Campbell, KY or Europe or A'stan. However in places like A'stan the troops may get combat/hazardous duty pay?

Not to mention the cost of all the equipment we left behind in A'stan … IIRC billions …

I'm sure no one really knows exactly. We carry a lot, but not all the cost of NATO.

Yes, no one knows exactly. Went we first invaded A'stan going after UBL, AQ, the Taliban, etc. Spec Op landed with loads of cash to buy the "loyalty" of the warlords, tribal leaders, etc. I'm sure some of those "bribes" are not totally accounted for. That is one of the down sides of operating in "society/culture dominated by religious, tribal, warlord/mullah affiliations, etc., etc.

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds | Reuters

Like with COVID many of those who push the Green agenda, don't really know squat. But it makes good sound bites and optics for those that blindly support that narrative. Plus gets votes … So those in gov't, their Go Green also means more "Green" in their bank accounts. 🤑💰💸

Also, if we went with corn-based ethanol. Most/much of our corn is used to feed our livestock, IIRC. Which the Go Green types want to get rid of too. "No steak for you !" … The cost of corn & livestock would go up. And more corn would have to be grown, AFAIK …

Legion thanks again on the costs

Obviously my point on the ethanol was how science tells us one thing one day and another the next. In this case it is even two different environmentalists groups disagreeing.

Remember coffee was good, then bad, then good. Same with eggs. Yet we are told to follow the science. How often has science been proven incorrect throughout history?

So for so many to buy in on the "man created" global warming, well that is your choice. But please understand that there are just as many who don't buy into it, or believe it is natural cycle of the planet.

So for so many to buy in on the "man created" global warming, well that is your choice. But please understand that there are just as many who don't buy into it, or believe it is natural cycle of the planet.

Here's what NASA says:

"A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century."

link

Again please feel free to believe it. I have read many in science who disagree. So when they say there is a consensus, there isn't. The consensus is with like minded scientists and they choose to ignore the others who disagree. We can all choose to believe what we please, at least we are supposed to be able to, in this country. Some might dispute that recently.

But understand there is a large group who would disagree and they have as much right to those views too.

Legion thanks again on the costs

Certainly, rest assured we spent so much $ in A'stan, I can think of very few ops that would even come close.

Obviously my point on the ethanol was how science tells us one thing one day and another the next. In this case it is even two different environmentalists groups disagreeing.

Agreed, again just like COVID … Everybody has an opinion informed or otherwise.

A good link Steve, there are literally hundreds of science organizations confirming the problem, thousands of scientists.

35th, yes there are opposing views and we each have our own thoughts. I think science changes because knowledge, evidence, experiences, conditions, etc. keeps growing or changing all the time. So it is wrong one day right the next on many things. But as time goes on, more and more things are proven via scientific method.

I would love for you to be right, but IMO, things don't look good.

Last years UN survey covered more than half the nations in the world and showed around 65% believing climate change has reached emergency status.
The US is somewhere around 65%. Interestingly there is a survey somewhere showing that Americans consistently underestimate how many of us believe in climate change. Whatever you believe, we seem to have a significant majority who want to address it here and across the globe.

As far as climatized weapons and military, I think we we need to live in the here and now, but make sure we don't get caught unprepared. Similar to EVs. I always have in the back of my mind how far behind our tech was before WW2. The Japanese aircraft and air ops were way ahead of us and we paid the price.
But science caught us up all the way to nuclear and the end of the war.

Steve I should ask, even if manmade warming is true, you can't stop it. As long as countries like China, India, Russia and lots of 3rd world countries continue to spew pollution into the air, water, etc., it won't matter what Europe, the US, Japan, Australia, Canada and a few more do. We all know you can't stop most of the others.

Oh is well! Oh is Well!

Joe has sent Kamala to Europe to secure The Ukrainian boarder. Rest well Europe. No one is as experienced at securing boarders as Kamala. Just look at our Southern boarder she was put in charge of. There will be peace in our times! 😂🤣😂

Subject: Kamala Harris flies to Europe to secure Ukraine border


link

link

Ah but Brad is suing Angelina on the front page!

Ukraine Ministry of Defence identifies Seven Possible Russian Military Routes Of Invasion

link

Main page
link

Armand

flies to Europe to secure Ukraine border

But what about the US Sothern Border ? It is far from secure … and we know why.

Ukraine Ministry of Defence identifies Seven Possible Russian Military Routes Of Invasion

I would hope so. Any military from the lower ranks on up knows how to do that …

Legion, there is a Southern boarder in the US? 😂 I thought that was Guatemala now, or maybe South America. 😂🤣

No tanks, high tech military, troops led by a ruthless KGB guy looking for a shooting war with us on the southern border.

But you did make me think about the Monroe Doctrine. Putin and his doctrine cannot be happy about the new missle base the US is now building in Poland, any more than he is about Ukraine joining NATO.

Very early March and from the Donbas area . I think there will be a drive by Russia to try to turn it into a civil war. That way it will be more difficult for Nato to offer any support as it would be deemed as interfering and may become the excuse for the main Russian force to invade .

Heavy Fighting Being Reported On The Front Lines In Eastern Ukraine Between Government And Rebel Forces

YouTube link

link

Armand

There are no Rebel Forces, Tango, but muscovite mercenaries, two corps of Russian Army.

Thanks…

A Valid question…

What if Russia Wins?…

link

Armand

If Russia wins he choose his next victim.
All this country is builded up for war and annexations.

legion4
would those roads not be mined, also have some nice ambush sites? also well surveyed for artillery ?

The Olympics end today. We will see what happens in the next 2 weeks. See if Xi will release the leash.

There wont be Russian invasion, February 16th pased :)

I guess that depends on what Xi wants. Those strings pass all the way to Moscow. Will Putinocchio cut his strings.

If there's a Russian invasion, I think it will be just to formalize its control over the Donbas. Behind the scenes it's hard to say how this plays out with Ukraine -- it's very murky. On the one had, some former WARPAC allies have been vocal in defense of Ukraine and sent aid (or would send aid if Germany had blocked say, Estonia's attempt to send artillery to Ukraine. Such a friend in Merkel! – link

On the other hand you have the US under Biden beating the wardrums in a way that's totally at odds with what Ukraine is saying. How bizarre to have the target of Russian aggression to tell the US, which is its ally, to shut the heck up and stop inflaming the situation.

Perhaps this headline from the Washington Post explains why:

With or without war, Ukraine gives Biden a new lease on leadership

Six months ago, the transatlantic alliance was on shaky ground, with President Biden's promise of a reinvigorated NATO under U.S. leadership severely undermined by the Afghanistan debacle and a foreign policy that seemed unready for prime time.

Today, Biden and his team have redeemed themselves in the eyes of many NATO allies, with a tough stance on Ukraine and the successful wrangling of the often-fractious alliance to support it.

link

So the Biden regime can try and "move on" from the Afghanistan fiasco and domestic failures and claim leadership.

Leadership and resolve….which has Zelensky asking Putin for direct negotiations, which he would not do if he had full faith and confidence in the US and NATO.

Ukraine President Zelenskyy proposes to meet with Putin as tensions with Russia grow

link

So here's a wild a3$ guess:

1. Ukraine will cut a deal with Russia that has some sort of trade ties and "mutual defense confidence building measures" This will include energy supply guarantees.

2. Ukraine will at a minimum stop talking about regaining the Donbas, and perhaps even cede Donbas to Russia, accepting the fait accompli it is in. Ukraine may also stop petitioning to join NATO.

This could be a massive US-led failure that pushes a reluctant Ukraine deeper into Russia's sphere of influence, as a consequence of "Wag the Dog" policy designed to shore up US domestic political support.

link

Seems fairly clear that while Zelenskyy was elected partly on a peace platform he's not intending to fall into the sink hole that's is being the modern Russian state's 'near abroad'.

In the last hour…
link

Looks like the Putin may recognise the two breakaway republics (and who will then tell their rulers will tell to request he provides Russian military assistance to protect them from 'NATO aggression' and Putin will then rubber sign off the occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory again, sorry, the stationing of a defensive force to ensure the sovereign territory of the republics Donetsk and Luhanskf).

SB – and maybe not. The risk to the US economy from imposing heavy sanctions would seem too great for this to be true, IMO. I think POTUS has done okay so far, but if he has to follow through it will hurt him. It's not really shoring up anything politically -there is serious risk for all players here. I think it's safe to say that he would much rather do without the prospect of trying to stop a dictatorship bent on international aggression and the many deaths that may result.

There has been a steady flow of negative politicized opinion from some cable news in which Ukraine is seen only through the lense of who it will help and hurt politically in the US, a sort of media Wag the Dog election plan. But right now we are still the United States, and there are a lot of lives and long term consequences at stake over there.

I think your deal options are possibilities, especially the second one, given the reality of the situation. Putin can keep grabbing pieces a lot easier than swallowing it all at once.

So if Putin takes door #2, what would the Allies do then?

So it looks like maybe piece by piece.

Subject: Putin set to recognize Donbass – Kremlin — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union


link

Gee, that's a surprise…the only surprise will be what does Ukraine do? Certainly they can feel their arse hanging in the breeze as the Germans withhold support, hampering NATO solidarity and Biden inconstant policy and false bravado.

Well Putin's addressed the nation and no doubt the tanks will get parked on his new lawn.

link

I assume he means Russia 'created' Ukraine in the same sense that the UK 'created' Zimbabwe and Palestine etc etc….

Yes, but as I asked before, what do you want the US and NATO to do?

I just now saw Petreaus on Fox saying that this is the strongest NATO has been in years and he does not think Putin will invade.

If Russian Forces Occupy Ukraine Will The West Arm A Guerilla Resistance?

link

Armand

It looks like the Allies are huddled tonight lining up their ducks. It also looks like a proportionate response with the sanctions as this one last tiny window for diplomacy is closing.

I would be afraid to let fly with allthe sanctions until we see how far it goes.

Putin sounds very emotional, is this for real or just for the home audience?

While campaigning for President in February 2020.

Joe Biden on Twitter: "Vladimir Putin doesn't want me to be President. He doesn't want me to be our nominee. If you're wondering why — it's because I'm the only person in this field who's ever gone toe-to-toe with him." / Twitter

Do you hear the laughing coming from Moscow? 👂

I wonder if we will ever find a time for unity? Not your fault 35th. Some media are using this crisis as a political weapon.

There are a lot of other interesting tweets around about Putin, but this way lies madness.