-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
US says Russia planning "false flag" attack to justify invading Ukraine
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe, but I don't think he sluffing off of the most recent Russian moves is a good thing.
Putin will see that as weakness.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That would be the Austria right on NATO's doorstep, that would absolutely have enjoyed all the benefits of a concerted NATO effort on their behalf if the Soviet Union ever pushed west, regardless of whether or not they joined the alliance.
Ukraine is not in the same position.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
The best reason to keep Ukraine out of NATO is that the place is a home for rabid neo-nazi jerks that have integrated themselves into the military. Opposition to Russia doesn't make them any less of an problem in the long run if Ukraine joined NATO.
The conflict could serve to move Finland and Sweden into NATO, which would make defending the Baltic States easier and cause huge strategic problems for Russia in the Baltic. Making sure Russia is aware of that consequence is possibly the best deterrent Ukraine has.
What does Russia really want? Dividing up enemies to weaken them is one of their favorite tactics. Keeping Ukraine as it is now is likely better for them than taking the whole of it. There is one strategic resource they want, however. Most of the big ships the Soviet navy had were built in shipyards that are still outside their control. Not that they have the money to actually build and large ships right now. Hard to use the shipyards as a justification for an invasion. Distraction might be a reason. But that is an expensive thing for a lame economy like Russia's.
The conflict could serve to move Finland and Sweden into NATO, which would make defending the Baltic States easier and cause huge strategic problems for Russia in the Baltic. Making sure Russia is aware of that consequence is possibly the best deterrent Ukraine has.
What does Russia really want? Dividing up enemies to weaken them is one of their favorite tactics. Keeping Ukraine as it is now is likely better for them than taking the whole of it. There is one strategic resource they want, however. Most of the big ships the Soviet navy had were built in shipyards that are still outside their control. Not that they have the money to actually build and large ships right now. Hard to use the shipyards as a justification for an invasion. Distraction might be a reason. But that is an expensive thing for a lame economy like Russia's.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 33,066
Ukraine as it is now is an example of Russian failure: Crimea, once prosperous, can't survive without Moscow aid. The Donbass Region, once a mining and manufacturing powerhouse, is now shuttling its workers in busses into Russian every day to work and get an income.
Compared to that, the non-occupied Ukraine is doing not too bad, given the circumstances.
Compared to that, the non-occupied Ukraine is doing not too bad, given the circumstances.
Families of US Embassy personnel in Ukraine ordered to begin evacuating as soon as Monday: officials
https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-em...in-ukraine-ordered-begin-evacuating-officials
This does not sound good.
Last edited:
What about the US invasion of Iraq?
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Spring is approaching thus ending any mobile campaign westwards after the first of March. Once the snow starts melting and rivers & mud come back, it would not be sensible to keep a rather dense pack of Russian ground hardware in Eastern Russia that can be destroyed with cluster bombs, that needs to return to Russia bases.
The 1944 Russian campaign against Germany in the same area kicked off in December 1943 in winter.
I believe this suggests it is a political sabre rattling activity and not an intention to invade.
The 1944 Russian campaign against Germany in the same area kicked off in December 1943 in winter.
I believe this suggests it is a political sabre rattling activity and not an intention to invade.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I eagerly await your explanation of how the US incited civil unrest in the neighboring country of Iraq, and then used the safety of the large ethnic American population there as a pretext to cross the border and annex part or all of the country.
The invasion of Iraq was based upon false information, but I would not call it a false flag attack.
9-11 actually happened and was not staged by the U.S. government.
Iraq had nothing to do with it, but neither was the attack staged by the U.S. just to give us an excuse to attack Iraq - even if we did blame them for it and actually did use it as an excuse to attack them. I'm guessing a good many Americans have already mostly forgotten that Iraq was falsely blamed for the attack and that was part of the Bush administration's justification for the war. But that doesn't make it a false flag - because it was a real attack and not staged by the U.S. government, regardless of whether or not it was used to falsely justify later aggression.
Similarly, Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical weapons and did not have an active nuclear weapons program, despite Bush administration's claim to the contrary. But there were no staged chemical, nuclear, or radiological attacks by the U.S. to blame Iraq for. We made false claims, but those claims did not include staged attacks by our own forces made to look like an Iraqi attack.
In a situation as tense as Ukraine, a false flag could be as simple as Russia shelling a few empty fields and buildings. Blame Ukraine for it, claim casualties. Engage in counter-battery fire. Let things spiral up from there.
Last edited:
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
I've been looking at the weather there and think you are a slightly off on this. Russia is not likely trying to take the whole country in one go. If they can move fast enough they could have half of it under their control and that could be enough to destabilase the existing power structures there to tip the balance of power in their favor.
The ground in Ukraine will still be frozen or close to it going into the second week of March. A short strike just before the weather changes will work well enough. Any remaining fighting will be in urban areas after that and muddy conditions will make it hard to counter any Russian gains.
If the Russians were trying to take the whole country in one offensive, you would be right.
Russia has massed 100,000 troops. Roughly ten divisions if there is not much support. They might be able to beat the Ukraine military with that but occupation afterwards would be a huge problem unless they have a lot more people standing by.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
But Russia is not trying to take any more of (non Russian) Ukraine at all. Russia is trying to keep NATO out of Ukraine. What possible advantage could Russia have with the cost of occupying (Non-Russian) Ukraine and losing the revenue from Nord Stream II?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yet.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Well it does seem obvious that Ukraine has had pro and anti Russian governments and the cheapest plan would be to let the West reinvest in Ukraine and then promote a pro-Russian government. (Which is what Russia is doing)
Ukraine's current president Zelensky, political experience is from playing Ukraine's president in the comedy show, "Servant of the People". (I'm not joking)so the Russian view on Zelensky is different to how he is being portrayed in the West.
"Servant of the People" (Trailer) / 2016 TV Series. starring comedian Volodymyr Zelensky as President of Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JinkCAN6Bx0
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Your assessment is backed by what evidence? Two points here. One is that Ukrainian culture is not all that distinctly separate from Russian. From Russia's perspective the difference is great or nonexistent depending on what they want from the area. One of the things they can use are the large ship yards they Russia lacks. The second point is that Russia traditionally sees itself as surrounded by enemies and looks to keep buffers between itself and the rest of the world. Ukraine has served that purpose well before.
There are several good reasons Ukraine is not part of NATO now. If they cleaned up their act and got rid of the far right wing nationalists in the govrenment and military they would probably be part of NATO now. It isn't going to happen any time soon. But Russia's actions are increasing ties between Ukraine and the west.
Shipyards.
Border security.
Securing the existing pipeline to Europe.
Distracting the Russian public from internal issues including an economy that should be about ten times bigger than it is.
But Russia is probably not going to try and take the whole country any time soon. Traditional Russian strategy is to divide the enemy and weaken them. They don't need the whole country to do that.
Last edited:
Oh please as if Putin cares if Russians are needlessly killed in war or end up even worse off than they already were. What Putin needs is yet another military conflict to distract his people with.
He will just "liberate" yet another sliver of Ukraine from the fascist hitlerist forces that is always besieging peaceful innocent Russia from every conceivable direction, even though Russians never did anything. They even shoot down airliners and murder hundreds of people just to tarnish Russia's reputation.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
That is assuming Putin is acting in a rational manner; a very big assumption IMHO.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
I need to set this out to clarify my point of view.
Gazprom, using Russian and European Energy company funding completes Nord Stream II, in November 2021, for USD 11 billion, to bypass Ukraine. Germany says it would close Nord Stream II if Russia invades Ukraine. Therefore invading Ukraine stops revenue to Russia from both Nord Stream I & II and Russia has the new additional cost of occupying Ukraine and more sanctions.
Why did Russia build Nord Stream II?
Secondly the new professional army in Western Russia is untested. It has lost half its officers and the new high skilled NCOs only graduated in the last five years after the completion of the 2008 reforms from a conscript military It would seem risky after the first Chechnya War to lose face again using an untested army.
Thirdly, the 100,000 strong army in the Western Russian border has been sitting and training there for months with NATO and other allied countries preparing defense, and yet the winter campaign window finishes in 30-45 days. If Russia was going to do something it would have already done it. There are already 20,000 to 40,000 separatist Russians fighters in Eastern Ukraine.
My final point is "What is the winning position" for Russia. If Russia does not invade, then nothing happens and it will receive Nord Stream I & II revenue. Putin will look strong and Russia & Europe will be more economically integrated, with Europe not buying the US gas Trump said it would need to buy from the USA when he was in office. Lavrov can be "pushy with words" if he knows Russia is not going to invade.
Ukraine will lose its revenue from Nord Stream I as more gas is sent direct to Germany through Nord Stream II. Russia can keep doing what it prefers doing, causing political instability with the hope of reinstalling a pro-Russian Ukrainian government. This is the cheaper option than starting a war and as NATO requires unanimous voting, existing NATO members might be reluctant to add Ukraine to NATO when its government may flip back to being pro-Russian.
Anyhow, all we have to do is watch and wait. Every satellite is watching tightly packed Russian ground hardware putting on a military demonstration. The moment they move to their starting positions, we will see this on TV that night. I think they will simply go home to bases after Lavrov ends his negotiations with NATO and gets what he can get.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I think Putin should get nothing from Nato. If he gets away with it this time, he will try it again.
Once again you are assuming Putin aims are rational. I am not so sure, I think he really does want to basically restore the old Soviet Union under a differenet name.
Once again you are assuming Putin aims are rational. I am not so sure, I think he really does want to basically restore the old Soviet Union under a differenet name.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
One thing history has shown:Rewarding aggresion just leads to more aggression.