Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Lord Halifax]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

For your information, once upon a time there was a medieval state called Rus. The capital of Rus was located in Kiev. The so-called Kievan Rus is the historical precedent of present-day Russia. I'm spitting pure facts

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kyivan-Rus

I don't think that's a pretext for an invasion, but the tweet about the Grand Duchy pf Lithuania is moronic. Kievan Rus is older

Did you intend to reply to someone else??

[Velasco]

Did you intend to reply to someone else??

Yes, the guy who posted the tweet from a Lithuanian MP

[HillGoose]

Christ, there's a lot of people on here failing to realise that this is not a videogame.

ya right now, but if the Russians actually invade then it'll be like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 irl

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Some Washington gossip at the end of this Julia Ioffe piece: https://puck.news/inside-the-biden-putin-chess-match/

Finally, some parting gossip from Washington. As strongly as the Biden administration has been backing Ukraine, the White House as well as its Democratic allies have just about had it with president Zelensky. According to three sources in the administration and on Capitol Hill whom I’ve spoken to in the last couple months, the Ukrainian president is by turns annoying, infuriating, and downright counterproductive. The White House, according to one source, was extremely displeased with Zelensky’s response to Biden’s press conference last week, during which Biden got some flak for suggesting that a “minor incursion” by Russia would be met proportionately. The view among these Democrats is that Biden’s commentary wasn’t wrong—there is a difference between, say, a cyber attack on Ukraine, and a ground invasion, and it’s kind of a no-brainer that there should be a difference in the response.

But Zelensky’s decision to publicly criticize the man whose help he most needs—tweeting that “there are no minor incursions and small nations”—was not looked upon kindly by the administration. Last week, Zelensky publicly praised Senator Ted Cruz and called for the passage of the Texas senator’s bill to impose sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline. Democrats on the Hill were furious: Cruz has been using that issue to hold up scores of Biden nominees to key posts, including to embassies abroad. Why would Zelensky cheer the man who has been such a massive thorn in the side of the one guy who can send him more lethal aid to fight the Russians?

Democrats also didn’t appreciate that, by cheering on Cruz’s bill, Zelensky could box in Germany, which has been quietly cooperating with the Biden administration in waiting to bring the pipeline online. The new German government has also let it be known that it may shut down Nord Stream altogether if Russia invades Ukraine. There’s a sense that Zelensky isn’t very good at navigating American politics and is stepping on all the wrong feet. Perhaps it’s because he is frantically trying to save his own country; perhaps it’s because the former TV star had no preparation for, or education in, geopolitics. It is also, unfortunately, the plight of a country that is caught between two behemoths fighting over its fate. Supplicating while maintaining your dignity is hard enough; doing so while not pissing off your geopolitical backer is harder still.

Zelensky really is a total clown. I feel terribly for the people of Ukraine that they stuck themselves with this imbecile.

[politicallefty]

What happens when Russia goes after the Baltics, countries under Article 5 protections?

You've answered your own question.

If I believed the obvious answer to that question, I wouldn't have said it. I don't believe NATO or Article 5 is as ironclad as your response suggests. I think we need to establish a strong NATO military presence in the Baltics.

[StateBoiler]

Must-read article just for the what's happened on underseas cables the past 2 years at the start, although I dispute her overall assertion Putin is trying to do a rope-a-dope and may be looking at the Baltic states here and the Suwalki Gap. It's not impossible, I just don't think it's likely.

https://drpippa.substack.com/p/warwhere-the-suwalki-gap-part-2?r=likyj

[Helsinkian]

Polls regarding Finland's NATO membership used to show a consistent 50%+ opposed to it. Recently that has started to change, with one recent poll showing the situation as 30% in favour, 43% against and 27% undecided. Interestingly, the same poll indicates that if the government were to support NATO membership, then its support among the people goes up to 50%, with 33% opposed and 18% undecided.

[😥]

https://twitter.com/DamonMacWilson/status/1486342013180162048?t=-5tR0V2Ba5FVb6lI...

Not related, but want to post it anyway

[PSOL]

So the Ukrainian defense minister says there won’t be an invasion. So it really was all just posturing, like it was last time the Russians got noisy.

All this exposes is that very few people among even NATO members want war

[😥]

So the Ukrainian defense minister says there won’t be an invasion. So it really was all just posturing, like it was last time the Russians got noisy.

All this exposes is that very few people among even NATO members want war

He, like many Ukrainian officials, claims that "Russia is not ready for an invasion today," but no one denies that this could happen in a week or two.

[😥]

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1486747496340721666?t=94_sl88igIwyHnF9Q...

[PSOL]

So the Ukrainian defense minister says there won’t be an invasion. So it really was all just posturing, like it was last time the Russians got noisy.

All this exposes is that very few people among even NATO members want war

He, like many Ukrainian officials, claims that "Russia is not ready for an invasion today," but no one denies that this could happen in a week or two.

I do not know the meaning of a speech, but the reports I am getting is that the inference was that an invasion in the short-term was unlikely.

Andriy, could you translate his whole speech and provide context.

[😥]

So the Ukrainian defense minister says there won’t be an invasion. So it really was all just posturing, like it was last time the Russians got noisy.

All this exposes is that very few people among even NATO members want war

He, like many Ukrainian officials, claims that "Russia is not ready for an invasion today," but no one denies that this could happen in a week or two.

I do not know the meaning of a speech, but the reports I am getting is that the inference was that an invasion in the short-term was unlikely.

Andriy, could you translate his whole speech and provide context.

"As of today, the situation in the world has not changed. The aggression continues. The war continues. There is no reason to believe that there will be an open invasion of borders from Russia, as of today.

The Russian armed forces have not created a strike group [without which an invasion is impossible] that would be able to carry out a violent invasion of Ukraine" -  Minister of Defense Oleksiy Reznikov

He also noted that it is not guaranteed that the situation will not change in the near future and did not rule out the possibility of a full-scale invasion after some time. In general, there is a consensus among Ukrainian politicians (both among the government and the opposition) that there will be no full-scale invasion in the near future (until the end of the Olympics). There is also a consensus that Russia needs at least another week or two to draw up troops that will be needed for a full-scale invasion at the border; and at present there are not enough troops for a full-scale invasion

[😥]

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1486193580758777857?t=Y9BgoQNHtayUebyBS_mNXg&s=19

This thread is an excellent source to monitor the movement of troops in Russia and Belarus

[😥]

https://twitter.com/mschwirtz/status/1486747021683929091?s=20&t=LL1qRULtQeE2...

https://twitter.com/mschwirtz/status/1486754609075007491?s=20&t=LL1qRULtQeE2...

[PSOL]

Unless Zelenskiy and the Defense minister are talking out of their @$$, this is yet again another nothingburger.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though that they are doing that is, of course, entirely possible.

[StateBoiler]

Though that they are doing that is, of course, entirely possible.

1. The troops are being put there for a reason by the Russians. If the end result of this is Russia does nothing and gets nothing diplomatically, and Ukraine ends up with more defense equipment, that's a loss in hard power for the Russians in the end because it makes a potential future invasion harder for them to carry out successfully.
2. I'm pretty confident through our satellites we have better signal intelligence (SIGINT) than the Ukrainians do on movement of Russian troops and equipment. The Ukrainians most likely have better human intelligence (HUMINT) than we do. I feel like that's not being shared well between the U.S. and Ukraine because the 2 sides seem to be saying different things.

[StateBoiler]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-buildup-ukraine-border-includes-blood-wounded-us-officials-say-2022-01-28/?utm_source=reddit.com

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW, Jan 28 (Reuters) - A Russian troop buildup along its border with Ukraine includes supplies of blood for the wounded, three U.S. officials told Reuters, a detail reinforcing U.S. comments that Russia "clearly" now has the capability to move on its neighbour.

The disclosure by the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, adds to growing U.S. concern that Russia could be preparing for a new invasion of Ukraine as it has amassed more than 100,000 troops near its borders.

Putin offered his first reaction to the U.S. and NATO responses to Russia's demands in a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron after weeks of personal public silence.

The Kremlin quoted Putin as telling Macron he would study the responses provided by Washington and NATO this week before deciding on further action.

Current and former U.S. officials said indicators like the blood supplies were critical in determining whether Moscow would be prepared to carry out an invasion, if Putin decided to do so.

A French presidency official said Putin, in his call with Macron, had underlined that he did not want the situation to intensify, echoing conciliatory comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said Moscow did not want war.

"Attention was drawn to the fact that the U.S. and NATO replies did not take into account Russia's principal concerns," the Kremlin said of Putin's conversation with Macron.

It listed those concerns as avoiding NATO expansion, not deploying offensive weapons near Russia's borders and returning NATO "military capabilities and infrastructure" to how they were before former Warsaw Pact states in eastern Europe joined.

"The key question was ignored - how the United States and its allies intend to follow the principle of security integrity ... that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of another country's security," it said.

The United States and NATO have said some of Russia's demands are non-starters but have also left the door open to dialogue.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the Western military alliance was watching closely as Russia moves troops and arms into Belarus for drills.

He said NATO was ready to increase its troop presence in eastern Europe if Russia took further aggressive actions against Ukraine, and cautioned that a Russian attack could take many forms including a cyber attack, attempted coup or sabotage.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the United States remained focused on countering Russian disinformation, including anything that could be used as a pretext for attacks on Ukraine.

"While we don't believe that President Putin has made a final decision to use these forces against Ukraine, he clearly now has that capability," Austin told reporters.

[StateBoiler]

Some military analysis, Western military leadership's thought on Russia's overarching goals.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putins-dangerous-gambit-to-invade-or-not-220406872.html?force_isolation=true

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-buildup-ukraine-border-includes-blood-wounded-us-officials-say-2022-01-28/?utm_source=reddit.com

Past few days we've seen the first signs of what we were told to expect closer to the invasion date: movement of medical supplies, logistics, Rosgvardia and VDV to the front. All in line with an invasion ~2 weeks or so away.

https://twitter.com/RedIntelPanda/status/1487517917252096001

https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1488246826729934849?s=20&t=AHlawUNC8...

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1486087760054296584?s=20&t=AHlawUNC8Zwhw8...

(Belarusian army welcoming Russian army with cake was too cute not to post)

[rc18]

It's bread, not cake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_salt

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1487534551513587717

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Don't look up!

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1487534551513587717

It's getting harder for me to understand the Ukrainians. I wonder if their goal early on was to drum up the beats of war (which is not hard with Russia on their border), sends them military equipment which they like, but they want NATO to make some concession to Russia that doesn't involve them and allows them to escape conflict.

They're at war now. Even if they've by fact conceded Crimea they're still at real war skirmish in Donbass. So they're already at war, why are they saying such info is causing panic and fear?