CNN: Russia plotting false flag event in Ukraine

[TrumpBritt24]

https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/1482007413184249859

[ugabug]

This sounds familiar.

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

[Hindsight was 2020]

Well at least we got a preview of BigSerg’s next round of talking points

[Sir Mohamed]

Extremely concerning if true.

The major problem we as Western nations/NATO have is that we can only work with sanctions and arms deliveries to Ukraine. Former haven't impressed Putin since and 2014 and latter is not something that would change much militarily. The only other option is a direct military involvement to which we don't have a direct obligation as Ukraine isn't a member of NATO. And a neither Biden nor anyone at NATO HQ or within the EU has any desire for a military confrontation that could start WWIII.

[Green Line]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

[SnowLabrador]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The reason Putin is going to invade Ukraine is to help the GOP. If Biden doesn't respond, he's a weak leader who refuses to help our allies. If he does respond, he's trying to start WWIII.

[Hindsight was 2020]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

[Gass3268]

Hopefully the US/NATO is secretly training and arming future Ukrainian guerrilla groups.

[Green Line]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

[Ferguson97]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

And that merely reporting on the facts of what another country is doing is not being a 'mouthpiece for the national security deep state', right?

[Green Line]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

And that merely reporting on the facts of what another country is doing is not being a 'mouthpiece for the national security deep state', right?

They're not reporting facts.  Where do you see facts in this report?

[😥]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

[😥]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The reason Putin is going to invade Ukraine is to help the GOP. If Biden doesn't respond, he's a weak leader who refuses to help our allies. If he does respond, he's trying to start WWIII.

If/when Russia invades, that will be the last reason why it will do so

[Big Abraham]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

Aggressively arming Ukraine and trying to force it into NATO would get you war with Russia, so what else do you propose? A symbolic congressional resolution saying "We Stand With Ukraine"?

[Ferguson97]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

Aggressively arming Ukraine and trying to force it into NATO would get you war with Russia, so what else do you propose? A symbolic congressional resolution saying "We Stand With Ukraine"?

"Force it into NATO"

[Big Abraham]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

Aggressively arming Ukraine and trying to force it into NATO would get you war with Russia, so what else do you propose? A symbolic congressional resolution saying "We Stand With Ukraine"?

"Force it into NATO"

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence. Which means not forcing it into NATO, which you and CNN seem to support and which would fan the flames of war. Tell me more about how CNN isn't part of the national security deep state that has been trying to forge a war with Russia for decades?

[Ferguson97]

CNN is basically an mouthpiece for the national security deep state and desperately wants a war with Russia.  Maybe they'll finally get one.

That’s right, down with Western imperialism! Russia should have to right to invade and subjugate her neighbors 😤

Totally, because if I think war with Russia would be a bad idea, that means I support Russia invading and annexing its neighbors..

You would fit in well with the Bush administration circa 2002-2003!

You are aware that there are more options than 'war with Russia' and 'do nothing', right?

Aggressively arming Ukraine and trying to force it into NATO would get you war with Russia, so what else do you propose? A symbolic congressional resolution saying "We Stand With Ukraine"?

"Force it into NATO"

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence. Which means not forcing it into NATO, which you and CNN seem to support and which would fan the flames of war. Tell me more about how CNN isn't part of the national security deep state that has been trying to forge a war with Russia for decades?

[Helsinkian]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

[Cassius]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

It’s not, but neither is the West obligated to assist it when it is obviously not in the interest of the West to do so.

[Big Abraham]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

(1) When has Russia legitimately threatened to occupy the whole of Ukraine? They've already backed down from invasion, and if you think a military deployment along the border counts as a provocation, then why would that not apply to the NATO deployment along the Baltics' border with Russia, which has continued for years now?
(2) If Ukraine maintained neutrality as was the plan under Yanukovich the current extent of the unrest in the Donbass would be unrealized. Prior to 2014 Ukraine did not have hostile relations with either Russia or NATO because any talks of joining NATO were off the table.

[Helsinkian]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

It’s not, but neither is the West obligated to assist it when it is obviously not in the interest of the West to do so.

While there may not be a treaty-bound obligation (though America and the UK did, along with Russia, pledge to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and borders in the Budapest memorandum of 1994), Western leaders might want to look into history and see what happens when you don't stand up to irredentist expansionist dictators. If the annexation of Crimea was analogous to the Sudetenland annexation of 1938, the invasion of the rest of Ukraine would be similar to Hitler's occupation of the rest of Czechia in 1939. Hitler did not stop there, and nor would Putin.

[Helsinkian]

(1) When has Russia legitimately threatened to occupy the whole of Ukraine? They've already backed down from invasion, and if you think a military deployment along the border counts as a provocation, then why would that not apply to the NATO deployment along the Baltics' border with Russia, which has continued for years now?
(2) If Ukraine maintained neutrality as was the plan under Yanukovich the current extent of the unrest in the Donbass would be unrealized. Prior to 2014 Ukraine did not have hostile relations with either Russia or NATO because any talks of joining NATO were off the table.

1) How have they backed down from invasion? Russia continues to have more than 100,000 troops on the border. That is not anywhere near comparable to the token force of NATO troops in the Baltics (around three battalions).

2) Yanukovich did not practice neutrality; he was a puppet of Moscow. The people of Ukraine did not like that, so they overthrew him. NATO is in Eastern Europe because the Eastern European countries, as sovereign nations, have wanted it to be there, not because of NATO "forcing itself" upon them. And NATO is, of course, a defensive alliance, not an offensive one, so Russia has no reason to fear it, unless Russia plans on attacking its neighbors.

[Lord Halifax]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

It’s not, but neither is the West obligated to assist it when it is obviously not in the interest of the West to do so.

All of "the West" do not necessarily share the same interests.

And even if we limit the West to the US and the bigger states in Western Europe it's not that obvious. Both the US, UK and France (along with Russia and China) guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for them giving up their nukes. Letting Russia steal Crimea was bad enough, but nuclear proliferation will soon get out of control if Ukraine is forced so cede big chunks of the east and south, core areas of their state. That's more dangerous long term than the risk of Russia going nuclear in a regional conflict with NATO.

[MaxQue]

Well this has already been causing conflict with Russia for decades. Of course, keeping Ukraine totally neutral would be the best option, rather than assuming Ukraine is part of America's sphere of influence.

How is Ukraine supposed to stay "neutral" between Russia and the West when Russia is occupying parts of it and constantly threatening to occupy the rest of it?

It’s not, but neither is the West obligated to assist it when it is obviously not in the interest of the West to do so.

Putting back Russia in its place is obviously in the West interest.

[Big Abraham]

1) How have they backed down from invasion? Russia continues to have more than 100,000 troops on the border. That is not anywhere near comparable to the token force of NATO troops in the Baltics (around three battalions).

There's currently over 22k NATO troops in the Baltics and that number is increasing. Meanwhile just recently Russia withdrew 10k of their troops.

2) Yanukovich did not practice neutrality; he was a puppet of Moscow. The people of Ukraine did not like that, so they overthrew him. Nato is in Eastern Europe because the Eastern European countries, as sovereign nations, have wanted that, not because of NATO "forcing itself" upon them.

Yanukovich was the popularly elected President of Ukraine and was overthrown in a coup with significant Western initiatives there. The Eastern European countries were drawn into NATO by a program of rapid expansion and drawing red lines on Russian borders after the Cold War and by betraying their promise to Secretary Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch to the east" of Berlin. That was in exchange for the astonishing concession to allow a united Germany to join a hostile military alliance in the first place.