US says Russia planning "false flag" attack to justify invading Ukraine

[Orphia Nay]

"White House press secretary Jen Psaki said intelligence shows Russia is laying the groundwork for invasion by planning a false flag incident, and through a social media disinformation campaign framing Ukraine as an aggressor."

US intelligence warns Russia 'laying the groundwork' to invade Ukraine
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01...laying-groundwork-to-invade-ukraine/100758744

This is a lot like conspiracy theory language, but is it true?

 

[timhau]

They're rehabilitating Stalin on other ways, so why not?

 

[crescent]

This is a lot like conspiracy theory language, but is it true?

Who knows? We would have to be able to read Putin's mind to know what he's really planning.

That said, Russia has clearly moved a lot of forces close to the Ukrainian border. They have repeatedly stated that they don't believe that Ukraine is even a real country, that it was just an separation of what had just been an internal boundary of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

And Russia clearly doesn't care what the actual people of Ukraine care about that matter. They are children who will understand what Russia means to them once they are back in the fold.

My guess is that Putin just likes to put some resources in place, shake things up, then take advantage of any opportunities that arise. If no opportunities arise, then he's okay with that too.

 

[Venom]

Wouldn't be the first time they tried something like this in recent memory. I tend to see it as hypervigilance, rather than conspiracist paranoia.

 

[theprestige]

"White House press secretary Jen Psaki said intelligence shows Russia is laying the groundwork for invasion by planning a false flag incident, and through a social media disinformation campaign framing Ukraine as an aggressor."

US intelligence warns Russia 'laying the groundwork' to invade Ukraine
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01...laying-groundwork-to-invade-ukraine/100758744

This is a lot like conspiracy theory language, but is it true?

It's a pretty standard playbook. The Nazis used it Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. I'm pretty sure the USSR used it in Poland, too. And a few other places before and after WW2.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Russia got into Crimea, and into Eastern Ukraine, just recently too.

Read up on the Anschluss, and re-familiarize yourself with Russia's preceding antics in Ukraine, and ask yourself just how implausible this idea really is. For me: not implausible at all.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No no, Glorious Mother Russia would never do that. And has never done that.
All those liars that claim such things happened in the past have now seen the light and stopped lying, or taken a holiday abroad or to Siberia.

And if such a thing were to happen it's because the poor Ukrainians are suffering under a Fascist repressive government just waiting for the reunion with their Russian brothers and sisters.

It's nice they try to be a real country, but all the world knows that only Russia is allowed to set the foreign policy of the areas at it's border.

/pravda off.

 

[Garrison]

It's a pretty standard playbook. The Nazis used it Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. I'm pretty sure the USSR used it in Poland, too. And a few other places before and after WW2.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how Russia got into Crimea, and into Eastern Ukraine, just recently too.

Read up on the Anschluss, and re-familiarize yourself with Russia's preceding antics in Ukraine, and ask yourself just how implausible this idea really is. For me: not implausible at all.

And given Putin's track record it will probably be hamfisted and completely transparent, so the usual suspects will of course lap it up.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And given Putin's track record it will probably be hamfisted and completely transparent, so the usual suspects will of course lap it up.

Some will lap it up, others will concluded that they don't care enough about Ukraine to get into a ground war with Russia. It's not exactly a trivial matter to escalate armed conflict with a nuclear power.

 

[crescent]

Some will lap it up, others will concluded that they don't care enough about Ukraine to get into a ground war with Russia. It's not exactly a trivial matter to escalate armed conflict with a nuclear power.

True - NATO has been clear from the beginning that it won't enter combat to protect Ukraine.

The pro-Russian propagandists have already made conflicting victory predictions about this that go like this:

1: NATO is a clear threat to Russia
2: Ukraine wants to join NATO
x: NATO will not allow Ukraine to join so long as it has unresolved territorial disputes with its neighbors (this rule applies to any nation seeking to join NATO, not just Ukraine)(Russia does not like to talk about this one)
3: If Russia attacks Ukraine and NATO fails to rescue Ukraine, that only shows that NATO is a paper tiger that won't even protect its own members (despite Ukraine not being a member) so....
4: The former USSR and Warsaw Pact nations should just leave NATO since it won't protect them anyway.

Whereas in reality, Finland has stated explicitly that if Russia invades Ukraine, then Finland will apply to join NATO. The Baltic nations and Poland more and more seem to see their membership in Nation as being the only thing that has allowed them to maintain functional independence. Putin has spent the better part of 20 years being the best recruiting agent NATO could ever dream of.

And NATO does not need to enter combat to help Ukraine - weapons and training can go a long way towards making a Russian victory too bloody and expensive for Russia to pull off. (Maybe - Ukrainian political and financial corruption could mean that the Ukrainian military is far less combat ready than assumed. U.S. military aid seems to struggle when dealing with nations that have high level of corruption, "ghost soldiers" and all that.)

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Of course the correct solution would be for Russia and the US and Ukraine to agree to turn the country into a version of Austria, i.e. Neutral with no membership in any defensive alliance.
But Russia would never accept this, as the real problem isn't Ukraine being under the influence of the West, but the country NOT being under the influence of Putin.

 

[timhau]

Whereas in reality, Finland has stated explicitly that if Russia invades Ukraine, then Finland will apply to join NATO.

Oh, I wish. But that isn't true.

If you ask me, we should have joined in the 1990s.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Any of these countries nervous about Russian aggression should probably start the process of joining NATO now, rather than waiting until the Russian army is massing at their border.

The whole point of NATO is to deter aggression early, not to swoop in at the last moment as a trump card.

 

[theprestige]

Of course the correct solution would be for Russia and the US and Ukraine to agree to turn the country into a version of Austria, i.e. Neutral with no membership in any defensive alliance.

You mean Austria, that was subject to false flag attacks as an excuse to invade and annex, that Austria? Or were you thinking perhaps of Switzerland, which went straight molon labe and made it stick?

Really the correct solution is... I have no idea. Ideally, Russia would respect Ukraine's autonomy, and work with the Ukrainian government to promote peace and prosperity among its various ethnic factions. Less than ideally, Russia would understand that it is a net negative to its own interests to try to annex (parts of) Ukraine. But I have no idea how to make a case that Russia would take seriously. It may be that the correct solution is to stay friendly with Ukraine, offer them as much support as practical without triggering an escalation, and wait for Putin to die so that we can see if his successor is interested (or can be interested) in charting a different course.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

This is a lot like conspiracy theory language, but is it true?

Russia started converting their conscript military to a smaller professional army in 2008 called the Serdyukov modernisation. This meant establishing new NCO schools to allow the use of more complicated equipment rather than easier to maintain equipment suitable for a conscript army. Russia has rolled out its new APCs and tank and modified its older tanks. This conversion sort of completed about a two years ago after numerous delays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_military_reform

It would seem risky to enter into a conflict with an new style army that has not had time to fully integrate, however, training such a new army by stationing them on a border sort of makes sense.

My gut feeling is that this is just Russian sabre rattling & training and Ukraine is simply pushing for western financial or military support as Ukraine will lose USD 3.2billion in annual transport commission revenues from the closing of Nord Stream 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o89BYp95Qiw

 

[theprestige]

Of course the correct solution would be for Russia and the US and Ukraine to agree to turn the country into a version of Austria, i.e. Neutral with no membership in any defensive alliance.
But Russia would never accept this, as the real problem isn't Ukraine being under the influence of the West, but the country NOT being under the influence of Putin.

Coming back to this after some more thought: Your "correct solution" misses the entire point of Ukraine joining NATO. A carefully neutral Ukraine would be gift-wrapped for Russia. The whole point of Ukraine wanting to join NATO is to have an ally that will give the Russians pause.

I'm confident that history will show that Russian aggression began before Ukraine made its first overtures to NATO. Their announced interest in joining the alliance was prompted by the Russian writing already on the wall. They must have known that anschluss was in the cards, sometime around Putin's second bout of presidency.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Austria after WW 2.

And no, I don't think Ukraine should join NATO - it is just an invitation to show that the Pact doesn't work unless the US wants it to. For starters, what should NATO do about Crimea, one Kiev joins the club?
Russia just has so much more interest than the West, and is willing to accept so much more pain.
Ukraine is the cradle of Russian identify, and most citizens only want to join NATO because they don't want to be invaded, not because they feel closer to Washington than to Moscow.

Austria is doing very well as on paper neutral, and Russians might be satisfied with a guarantee that what they consider their ancestral homeland won't become part of the West.
It won't be enough for Putin, though, because he is so paranoid about the US that he is willingly handing over the future of his country to China.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You can't join the NATO as long as you have active border disputes, which might be part of why Russia invaded the Crimea and keeps funding the separatist militias.

 

[dudalb]

Wouldn't be the first time they tried something like this in recent memory. I tend to see it as hypervigilance, rather than conspiracist paranoia.

You have to suspect something like this given Putin's record, frankly.

 

[dudalb]

Of course the correct solution would be for Russia and the US and Ukraine to agree to turn the country into a version of Austria, i.e. Neutral with no membership in any defensive alliance.
But Russia would never accept this, as the real problem isn't Ukraine being under the influence of the West, but the country NOT being under the influence of Putin.

It's old fashioned Russian Imperialim, period.
And it does not change very much from Tsar to The Soviets to PUtin.

 

[crescent]

A bunch of schools in Crimea have been evacuated due to "bomb threats".

Hmmm....

Lots and lots of activity still. Russia is shifting a bunch of naval resources to the Black Sea, including some amphibious assault ships. Also sending troops into Belarus for joint training exercises, although the troops are not being sent to the locations that the claimed exercises are supposed to take place. The joint exercises are scheduled to start in three weeks.

Europe is sending anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, along with training personnel (who are active duty military). The U.S. is flying surveillance planes over Ukraine, along the borders with Russian-occupied Donbass and Belarus. U.S. and other NATO nations are also sending additional ships to the Black Sea.

I have read some speculation that nothing will happen for at least a few weeks. The additional Russian ships have not yet arrived in the Black Sea, and when they do they may need to stop at Sevastopol to replenish and maybe to take on troops. The ground along the Ukraine/Belarus border is not yet frozen - Russia sort of specializes in winter warfare, that's when they can best make use of their skills and military traditions.

Lots of speculation regarding just what aims Russia might have. Most seem to think that a total invasion to overrun all of Ukraine is off the table, but they could do anything from nothing up to occupying all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper river and all of the Black Sea coastline (including Odessa), which would leave Ukraine landlocked and much smaller. Anything in between that could happen.

From the NATO side, it is pretty clear that NATO ground troops will not be fighting unless things escalate far more than anyone is anticipating. The U.S. sort of implies that it may continue electronic surveillance flights even if fighting starts.