Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/VALERIEin140/status/1488624751098667008


Not that Hungary has a say there, but 😬

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1488926785848946692

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/VALERIEin140/status/1488624751098667008
Not that Hungary has a say there, but 😬

Well, stops NATO and the EU from being unanimous on anything.

In theory. But I'm pretty sure, that 10 mln Hungary can't do anything, even if they wished to. It's more symbolical.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The mollify Russia to encircle China idea is a tempting one but I think has a couple of big problems:

1) There's very little evidence that the Russian leadership is interested in allying with the West against China. Their ideal situation would be to have their own sphere of influence encompassing the former USSR that allows them to remain an independent great power actor and play China and the US off against each other. Actually committing to an alliance against China would expose Russia to military conflict with its largest and most powerful neighbour for what benefit?

2) The US/West would have to offer the Russian leadership regime security, i.e. opposing peaceful protests and muzzling free press and NGOs in Russia, Russia's sphere and at home. I don't think that's compatible with US and European countries remaining liberal democracies, or at least upholding liberal and democratic values. This is a fundamental unbridgeable divide that is probably the major factor driving Russia and China together as a club of autocracies who feel their regimes and nations are under threat by the values of the Western-led liberal international order.

If the US was happy enough sacrificing independent democratic allies and free speech for geopolitical benefit, then it could just as easily surrender Taiwan to China, shut up about Xinjiang and Tibet and negotiate an evolution of the international order to accommodate a grand bargain with China. In fact, given China's greater power that would probably make more sense than sacrificing it for the sake of Russian neutrality.

Take arguments to extreme and then fight them.

allying with the West - enough with not allying with China. Just 10 years ago, there Russia was extremely suspicious of China and economically/technically totally independent. Still quite suspicious, but doesn't really has a choice.

The US/West would have to offer the Russian leadership regime security, i.e. opposing peaceful protests and muzzling free press and NGOs in Russia, Russia's sphere and at home. nuh, non-NATO/EU is enough. Denouncing "coup" against Yanukovych (after he already agreed on snap elections) would be enough. Moreover, it's basically what US does to Saudi, Paquies or whatnot.

The problem is that if you concede to Russia its desire to remake the international order into one akin to the Concert of Europe, where great powers carve up the world into spheres of influence according to their strategic interest

It's literally what it is. Do you really think, Ukraine is not in NATO, because of some requirements (imagine there was no frozen conflicts)? Obviously, it's because Russia won't let it happen. It's the reality. Just make it official.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

And it's not like it came out of the blue. Putin started to warn about NATO enlargemnt in 2005? Then you have Munchin speech in 2007.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4MAsIh3zMA
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

 Here's how US Ambassador to Russia summarized Russia's/Putin's/Lavrov said to (thank you Wikileaks) in 2008. Nice subject title of the email! Imo, pretty reasonalbe fears. Nevertheless, despite all the warnings Bush pushed for MAP for Ukraine and Georgia to NATO.


NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES 
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000265
 
SIPDIS
 
SIPDIS
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2018
TAGS: PREL, NATO, UP, RS
SUBJECT: NYET MEANS NYET:  RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT
REDLINES
 
REF: A. MOSCOW 147
     B. MOSCOW 182
 
Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns.  Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).
 
1.  (C) Summary.  Following a muted first reaction to
Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)
at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and
other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion
as a potential military threat.  NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia.  In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene.  Additionally, the GOR
and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry,
Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations
generally.  In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability
and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions.  End
summary.
 
MFA: NATO Enlargement "Potential Military Threat to Russia"
--------------------------------------------- --------------
 
2.  (U) During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat.  While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential.  Lavrov
stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in
the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the
U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region.
But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own
decisions about their security and which political-military
structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on
their neighbors.
 
3.  (U) Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that
enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a
legacy of the Cold War.  He disputed arguments that NATO was
an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic
governments.  He said that Russia understood that NATO was in
search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for
new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because
they were under the NATO umbrella (e.g. attempts of some new
member countries to "rewrite history and glorify fascists").
 
4.  (U) During a press briefing January 22 in response to a
question about Ukraine's request for a MAP, the MFA said "a
radical new expansion of NATO may bring about a serious
political-military shift that will inevitably affect the
security interests of Russia."  The spokesman went on to
stress that Russia was bound with Ukraine by bilateral
obligations set forth in the 1997 Treaty on Friendship,
Cooperation and Partnership in which both parties undertook
to "refrain from participation in or support of any actions
capable of prejudicing the security of the other Side."  The
spokesman noted that Ukraine's "likely integration into NATO
would seriously complicate the many-sided Russian-Ukrainian
relations," and that Russia would "have to take appropriate
measures."  The spokesman added that "one has the impression
that the present Ukrainian leadership regards rapprochement
with NATO largely as an alternative to good-neighborly ties
with the Russian Federation."
 
Russian Opposition Neuralgic and Concrete
-----------------------------------------
 
5.  (C) Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch
a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about
the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does
Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine
Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears
unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would
seriously affect Russian security interests.  Experts tell us
that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions
in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the
ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a
major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In
that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to
 
intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
 
6.  (C) Dmitriy Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie
Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the
long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in
U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and
neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership.  The
letter requesting MAP consideration had come as a "bad
surprise" to Russian officials, who calculated that Ukraine's
NATO aspirations were safely on the backburner.  With its
public letter, the issue had been "sharpened."  Because
membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics,
it created an opening for Russian intervention.  Trenin
expressed concern that elements within the Russian
establishment would be encouraged to meddle, stimulating U.S.
overt encouragement of opposing political forces, and leaving
the U.S. and Russia in a classic confrontational posture.
The irony, Trenin professed, was that Ukraine's membership
would defang NATO, but neither the Russian public nor elite
opinion was ready for that argument.  Ukraine's gradual shift
towards the West was one thing, its preemptive status as a de
jure U.S. military ally another.  Trenin cautioned strongly
against letting an internal Ukrainian fight for power, where
MAP was merely a lever in domestic politics,  further
complicate U.S.-Russian relations now.
 
7.  (C) Another issue driving Russian opposition to Ukrainian
membership is the significant defense industry cooperation
the two countries share, including a number of plants where
Russian weapons are made.  While efforts are underway to shut
down or move most of these plants to Russia, and to move the
Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk earlier than
the 2017 deadline, the GOR has made clear that Ukraine's
joining NATO would require Russia to make major (costly)
changes to its defense industrial cooperation.
 
8.  (C) Similarly, the GOR and experts note that there would
also be a significant impact on Russian-Ukrainian economic
and labor relations, including the effect on thousands of
Ukrainians living and working in Russia and vice versa, due
to the necessity of imposing a new visa regime.  This,
Aleksandr Konovalov, Director of the Institute for Strategic
Assessment, argued, would become a boiling cauldron of anger
and resentment among the local population.
 
9.  (C) With respect to Georgia, most experts said that while
not as neuralgic to Russia as Ukraine, the GOR viewed the
situation there as too unstable to withstand the divisiveness
NATO membership could cause.  Aleksey Arbatov, Deputy
Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued that Georgia's
NATO aspirations were simply a way to solve its problems in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and warned that Russia would be
put in a difficult situation were that to ensue.
 
Russia's Response
-----------------
 
10.  (C) The GOR has made it clear that it would have to
"seriously review" its entire relationship with Ukraine and
Georgia in the event of NATO inviting them to join.  This
could include major impacts on energy, economic, and
political-military engagement, with possible repercussions
throughout the region and into Central and Western Europe.
Russia would also likely revisit its own relationship with
the Alliance and activities in the NATO-Russia Council, and
consider further actions in the arms control arena, including
the possibility of complete withdrawal from the CFE and INF
Treaties, and more direct threats against U.S. missile
defense plans.
 
11.  (C) Isabelle Francois, Director of the NATO Information
Office in Moscow (protect), said she believed that Russia had
accepted that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO
and was engaged in long-term planning to reconfigure its
relations with both countries, and with the Alliance.
However, Russia was not yet ready to deal with the
consequences of further NATO enlargement to its south.  She
added that while Russia liked the cooperation with NATO in
the NATO-Russia Council, Russia would feel it necessary to
insist on recasting the NATO-Russia relationship, if not
withdraw completely from the NRC, in the event of Ukraine and
Georgia joining NATO.
 
Comment
-------
 
12. (C) Russia's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine
and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived
 
strategic concerns about the impact on Russia's interests in
the region.  It is also politically popular to paint the U.S.
and NATO as Russia's adversaries and to use NATO's outreach
to Ukraine and Georgia as a means of generating support from
Russian nationalists.  While Russian opposition to the first
round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990's was strong,
Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to
what it perceives as actions contrary to its national
interests.
BURNS

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1489022319083212804

Appeasing Zelensky?! 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Yesterday in News.

Before meeting Putin Macron mentioned Finlandiation of Ukraine.

Mr. Macron said he had coordinated closely with the Western allies, including the United States and Germany. But some supporters of Ukraine’s pro-Western course have criticized him for being too solicitous of Mr. Putin’s demands. Mr. Macron did nothing to assuage those concerns by telling reporters before his meeting with Mr. Putin that a “Finlandization” of Ukraine was “one of the models on the table.”

The term alludes to how Finland, facing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, was able to maintain independence from its powerful neighbor and survive as a democracy on condition of strict neutrality. A “Finlandization” of Ukraine would imply that it would never join NATO and that Russia would exercise considerable influence over its political options.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/europe/putin-macron-russia-france-ukraine.html

BBC so called journalist asked Blinken about US/Europe push for Minsk Agreement and whether it would be "disruptive" to Ukraine...

https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-european-union-high-representative-for-foreign-affairs-and-security-policy-and-vice-president-of-the-european-commission-josep-borrell-at-a-joint-press-availabilit/

MR PRICE:  We’ll now take two questions.  The first question goes to the BBC, Barbara Usher.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Good afternoon.  A question about diplomacy for you, Mr. Blinken.  The U.S. and Europe are pushing Minsk as the solution while Ukraine is completely against it.  Do you still think a measure of autonomy for Donbas, the autonomy stipulated in the agreement, is the way to go?

And a question for you, Mr. Borrell.  You’re welcome to comment on that as well, but with regards to security does the EU agree with the U.S. assessment that a potential imminent invasion of Ukraine is in the cards?  If so, why isn’t the EU raising the same alarm as the Americans?  And if not, do you have a different assessment of the situation?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you, Barbara.  I’m happy to start.

With regard to Minsk, the United States and Ukraine are united in believing that Minsk is the path forward to resolve the conflict in the Donbas that was created by Russia’s invasion in 2014, and the best way to restore Ukraine’s border, to restore its sovereignty, as well as to uphold the rights of Ukrainian citizens, including those living in the Donbas.

Repeatedly over the last years, Ukraine has sought to move forward with the implementation of Minsk.  The Normandy Format, as it’s called with France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia involved has been the principal vehicle for trying to advance that.  I think if you look back over the requirements established in the Minsk Agreements, three agreements over the course of several months, it is a fair assessment to say that Ukraine has sought to move forward on most if not all of them, while Russia has made good on virtually none of its obligations under Minsk.

But in all of my conversations with our Ukrainian counterparts, they remain committed to it.  There was recently a meeting of senior officials in the Normandy Format.  Ukraine continues to put forward good-faith ideas on how to move forward.  Minsk does not spell out some issues of sequencing when it comes to the steps that the parties need to take.  Ukraine has been approaching this in good faith.  We have not to date seen Russia do the same.

The agreements speak of special status for the Donbas, and I believe that with the appropriate sequencing, the Ukrainians would be prepared to move forward.  But again, the overall picture on Minsk since 2014 has been one in which Ukraine has sought to move forward on most of its requirements and commitments; Russia has not.  So if Russia is serious about implementing Minsk, I think it will find a strong partner in Ukraine, and France and Germany are helping to lead this effort.  There’s supposed to be another meeting of the – in the Normandy Format in the next couple of weeks.  I hope Russia will demonstrate a seriousness of purpose.  There are some near-term steps that could be taken to continue to build confidence in – toward the implementation of Minsk.  We have one of them that’s already more or less in place, which is a ceasefire that brings things back to the levels of 2020.  It hasn’t been perfect, but it’s definitely been an improvement over what we were seeing just a few weeks ago, so that’s encouraging.

The Ukrainians have also talked about having a release of prisoners on both sides, and making sure as well that across the line of contact people can move much more freely.  Unfortunately, that’s been blocked by those on the separatist side.  I think that would be a good way to show seriousness of purpose, and then to pursue the actual implementation of the accords.  But bottom line is Ukraine is committed to Minsk.  If Russia is too, then I believe there’s a way to move forward and resolve this conflict.

QUESTION:  Some in Ukraine are saying that the level of autonomy would be disruptive to your country.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  This is all for discussion and in progress.  Again, the Minsk Agreements talk about special status, but there are myriad other requirements that go to security, that go to restoring Ukraine’s border, that go to steps that unfortunately continue to be taken primarily by the Russian and separatist side that need to be addressed.  And I believe that those are addressed and addressed pursuant to what was agreed in 2014.  There’s a way to resolve this through the Minsk Agreements.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1490804393813450758

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/vmsalama/status/1491407103164133378

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Good thread on invasion timing. 20th-21st of this month is the highest risk date but before or after that can't be ruled out. At this point Russia has the ability to start military action at very short notice.

Full invasion like this one?   Other than that Russia has always had ability to start military action at very short notice.



https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1490124082314108938

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Good thread on invasion timing. 20th-21st of this month is the highest risk date but before or after that can't be ruled out. At this point Russia has the ability to start military action at very short notice.

Full invasion like this one?   Other than that Russia has always had ability to start military action at very short notice.



https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1490124082314108938

Pretending that there's no difference between having limited forces deployed and having nearly 100 battalion tactical groups in the field in the immediate vicinity of the Ukrainian border is just plain insulting to everyone here. You should step up your game if you want to keep pushing Putin's propaganda.

It's not what I wrote. Yawn.

If you think, that Full Invasion is a realistic, scenario, then yes, it's a game-changer. But I don't think, which I repeatedly said, it's a realistic scenario. I think that any invasion is unlikely, but if there will be one, it will be limited and that case, I quote myself, "Russia has always had ability to start military action at very short notice".

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

OK then let's assume the above assessment is correct. Kiev falls in 2-3 days.....and then what??

That's my point. I don't doubt we can take Kiev in 24 hours, and whole Ukraine in 3 days, lol. But then what? Guerrilla warfare will start sooner or later and we will just start to kill the civilians/Ukraine army in the cities? No way. I don't believe there is anything positive Putin can gain by actually taking Kiev.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Frankly if Kiev falls in 3 days I'm asking serious questions of Ukrainian military and political competence considering all the defense weapons they just got sent from multiple countries. The military aid has not been meant to change the result of war, but it was meant to increase the risk of invasion, make the Russians bleed more. You're not forcing them to bleed a lot if you lose the capital in 3 days.

Imo, the military aid they've got is solely against Donbass/Luhansk type of fights.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Imo, it sounds 100 times more insane than Pee-tape and probably comes from the same source  

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491768460216524803
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491782202954170374https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491823783153442819

So proud, we are remaining the only trolling super power.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Theory: Russian invasion takes place during the Superbowl so the maximum number of Americans are preoccupied

And help truckers to protest during Super Bowl 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Vague in first place and backtracked later, but diplomats usually don't improvise. Test balloon?

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1493116643572072451

https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1493167291369984002

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1493217886458028035
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1493218674802573315
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1493208779852296195

Valentine day! Love is in the air!

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1493266743694868491

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1493243863858831365
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1493243867507924992
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1493243870896873480
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1493246019101937667

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Zelensky suggesting he has received intelligence that Russia will invade.

Not quite the same as him saying, "Russia will invade on this date"...

https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/status/1493296318080593921
And here is Zelensky saying this in his own words: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=257130379907084&extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C&ref=sharing

This "Zelensky knows Putin won't attack" narrative needs to die

LOL, no. It's just a bad translation (automated by Facebook LMAO). You, guys, have to stop quoting CNN.

They say != has been informed. Here "they" is impersonal like in: they say we can't do it - yes we can!

He literally says: [to us] they say the 16th will be the day of attack/invasion. Let's make it a Day of Uniting. Before that he says: they once again give the date of invasion and try to get us scared and sow panic.

This "Zelensky knows Putin won't attack" narrative needs to die

Hahaha, it's literally the opposite. He literally once again indirectly blames anglosaxones for spreading panic. Too bad, Andriy is not here. He could confirm (Ze speaks in Ukraine).

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Bloomberg journo:
https://twitter.com/annmarie/status/1493308697115865088https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1493311203434807305

Yes. Everyone who speak Slavic language totally understand what Ze was saying (in Ukrainian).

The sheer incompetence of CNN/NBC etc journalists isn't surprising, though. But I wonder if CIA:s "intelligence" is much better 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I would also like the USA to present at the UN evidence they have that shows Russia will invade imminently.  They did it in the Cuban Missile Crisis, why not now ?   

Either Russians will start shooting or publicly-available satellite imagery will confirms current Russian positions faster than a formal presentation to the UN could happen, I'd guess.

You always try to shift focus, lmao. It isn't about imagery. You don't even need this. There is TONS of (often firsthand, that is from soldiers themselves lmao) videos in Russian Tiktok/Twitter that shows how tanks/battalions are moving to Ukraine border etc etc.

There is no doubts about it, and the Russians have never even disputed it. It's the assessments about "imminent" invasion/taking Kiev/specific dates that need at least *some* evidence. It's one thing to say "Russia has enough military to take Kiev in 2 days" and "Russia is about/likely to invade Kiev any time soon". Btw, if we invade we'll take Kiev in 24 hours  - Russian Bear's assessment!

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/CBSWalsh/status/1493295395992227849

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I will be very surprised if there is not a war by tomorrow or the next day.

Why do you think so? Only because WH says it's likely? What about their assessments in Afghanistan?


Even if you believe Russia will invade, why today/tomorrow? Why not next week? Why not next month? Incredible.


Here is what Ukraine ruling party said just yesterday (and Ukraine has been saying it since ~ december 2021):

https://twitter.com/NewVoiceUkraine/status/1493618605363273744


Note, that they mean Biden administration when they say "some U.S. media outlets". They are smart enough to not openly calling Biden/WH/CIA assessments "blatant fake news".

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/EmbassyofRussia/status/1493884806022713344

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1493862768818151425https://twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/1493501942072496129

The only trolling super power