John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I’d say damned close to everything!
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Voice of America as the federally-funded official international media outlet of the US government would actually be the counterpart.
Also in that it's officially not a propaganda outlet, that would be Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for the US.
Russia is testing Nuclear capable missiles within the Norwegian EEZ in the far North, the largest area to be blocked since the cold war. This is part of the Grom-2022 (Thunder) nuclear exercise. Missile tests will be conducted tomorrow (February 19). The area will be blocked until February 22. I think they started the blockade on February 16. Local Norwegian fishermen are not happy about this.
There are currently about 20 Northern Fleet warships and support vessels sailing the Barents Sea as part of an ongoing exercise. Three aviation regiments of the Northern Fleet took part in the exercise to defend the Kola Peninsula, home to the ballistic missile submarines. This exercise included about 20 sorties from airports in the Murmansk region and was carried out in cooperation with the naval forces operating in the Barents Sea.
Su-24 bombers, as well as Su-33 and MiG-29 fighter jets trained on attacking enemy targets at sea in cooperation with the nuclear-powered battle cruiser “Pyotr Velikye” and the frigate “Admiral Gorshkov”.
Onshore, units of the air defense with S-300 and S-400 systems participated in the drill.
Barents Sea has key role when Putin plays nuke game on Saturday | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)
Russia issues largest ever warning zone in Norwegian part of the Barents Sea | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)
There are currently about 20 Northern Fleet warships and support vessels sailing the Barents Sea as part of an ongoing exercise. Three aviation regiments of the Northern Fleet took part in the exercise to defend the Kola Peninsula, home to the ballistic missile submarines. This exercise included about 20 sorties from airports in the Murmansk region and was carried out in cooperation with the naval forces operating in the Barents Sea.
Su-24 bombers, as well as Su-33 and MiG-29 fighter jets trained on attacking enemy targets at sea in cooperation with the nuclear-powered battle cruiser “Pyotr Velikye” and the frigate “Admiral Gorshkov”.
Onshore, units of the air defense with S-300 and S-400 systems participated in the drill.
Barents Sea has key role when Putin plays nuke game on Saturday | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)
Russia issues largest ever warning zone in Norwegian part of the Barents Sea | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)
Last edited:
In a meeting with the Greek Foreign Minister, the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov repeated again what Russia sees as the main issue: that Russia believes other countries are strengthening their own security at the expense of Russia's security. The ironic thing is of course that Russia is strengthening it's own security at the expense of the security of several European countries, furthermore, this goes back to long before the end of the cold war, and indeed even before the cold war.
Lavrov is now also claiming that OSCE is not to be trusted anymore:
This does not sound very good.
Lavrov is now also claiming that OSCE is not to be trusted anymore:
The latest on the Ukraine-Russia border crisis: Live updates (cnn.com)
This does not sound very good.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. It all looks awful. US now claiming up tp 190,000 troops around Ukraine Russia has amassed up to 190,000 troops on Ukraine borders, US warns | Ukraine | The Guardian
Feb 2Oth was a figure mentioned in some intelligence reports as a likely start date for the party. The ramping up of Russian disinformation and other actions would seem to be consistent with that.
What ever happens, I don't think there will never be any reduction in tension between 'the West' and Russia while Mr Putin is leader.
SACEUR has asked allies to increase readiness for a possible NRF deployment.
The vast majority of NRF are currently German troops (about 16,800 out of 25,000 - primarily IFFG, not VJTF) since January (and until 2024), and Germany today began establishing alert levels in line with the above request. NRF VJTF, i.e. primarily FR components of D/F Brigade, are at NTM 2 days.
This is in addition to and separate from German OTH reserves for deployed EFP forces already receiving notice to move February 9th.
And yes, that's a lot of acronym soup.
The TL;DR version is that NATO is effectively mobilizing its rapid Response Forces for a possible deployment, likely within NATO territory. As of right now.
The vast majority of NRF are currently German troops (about 16,800 out of 25,000 - primarily IFFG, not VJTF) since January (and until 2024), and Germany today began establishing alert levels in line with the above request. NRF VJTF, i.e. primarily FR components of D/F Brigade, are at NTM 2 days.
This is in addition to and separate from German OTH reserves for deployed EFP forces already receiving notice to move February 9th.
And yes, that's a lot of acronym soup.
The TL;DR version is that NATO is effectively mobilizing its rapid Response Forces for a possible deployment, likely within NATO territory. As of right now.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #507
In my opinion, he should have stayed prime minister in 2012, and taken on more of a back seat role. That was the major missed opportunity to cement the transition to institutional rather then personalized power. Since then it's been downhill. Unfortunately I don't see a good domestic alternative. Too much time has been spent sanitizing the political scene inside Russia for an easy alternative to emerge.
Biden said that they have significant itelligence, that confirms that Putin made a decision to invade in the following days. He said that Putin does not consider using nuclear weapons. He said there are some discussions on sanctions, mut they are minor and about additions to waht have been already determined.
It is forum rules to provide a link to the source. Please do so in the future. Yes in this case I realise that most media outlets will be posting this, but it's still no excuse. Not all people have the time to go hunting links / sources.
Pentaprism
Member
In my opinion Putin is probably the Smartest Politician of my lifetime. He is a master strategist. He is playing Chess, Biden is playing Checkers. The idea that Biden "knows" what he is up to is fanciful at best. Whatever "intelligence" they have Russia would be well aware they have it and may well have deliberately created it.
I still don't see any reason or benefit in Russia invading Ukraine, they can control it to a large extent without doing so.
Last edited:
I have no idea about him being the smartest politician but he certainly understands how far he can push things and what he can and can't get away with. He holds the initiative with NATO being forced to react to his moves. I doubt that anything which has happened so far has taken him by surprise, every move he's made and every NATO reaction having been factored in.
I hope that you can back up you claims of: "The idea that Biden "knows" what he is up to is fanciful at best. Whatever "intelligence" they have Russia would be well aware they have it and may well have deliberately created it." It would be advisable for you to do so considering it is a requirement of the rules.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I have a slightly different view, I think he's a murderous mug who will join a long line of terrible Russian leaders that have done irreparable harm to the Russian people. He's leading Russia into a junior partnership with the PRC and quite frankly, I expect China will eat Russia lunch.
@cdxbow Play the ball, not the man.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited by a moderator:
Российские пропагандисты сообщили о разрыве снаряда в Ростовской области вблизи границы с Украиной | Новости Эспрессо
Российские СМИ сообщают о разрыве снаряда в Ростовской области в 1 км от границы с Украиной. Читайте больше здесь.
ru.espreso.tv
There are lots of messages in various Russian newspapers about an artillery shot that has fallen on Russia territory. While it might be a fake, I tend to believe that they could actually fire a shot in that direction. It would cost nothing and it would come from Ukraine territory, making very good news picture.
Pentaprism
Member
He is admitting himself all they are going on are "indications" and his "senses". The indications are no more than Russia moving troops in when they said they were moving them out. You can put whatever value you like on President Biden's "senses".
Officials citing US intelligence: Russia's military pullback a ruse
U.S. officials have obtained intelligence that Russia's announced military pullback from Ukraine's border was a deliberate ruse to mislead the United States and other world powers, four officials said Thursday,
Pentaprism
Member
Some interesting ideas in your response and I don't entirely disagree with all of them;
Murderous - Quite possibly. But who exactly are you accusing him of murdering?
Some Journalists and opposition fighters in Russia have been killed, maybe you are referring to this? Certainly looks bad but who exactly ordered it?
Some Apartments were blown up right at the start of Putin's Presidency and it was blamed on Chechen terrorists, this didn't look good either. But unless you know the inner workings of the Russian Government it's hard to say who made that call. I don't believe Putin is solely responsible for nearly as many decisions as it is assumed he is.
And it's not like he's the only Leader who has made decisions that have resulted in deaths. If a Commander in Chief orders an attack knowing that there will likely be Civilian Casualties aka "collateral damage" are they not Murderers? While Russia has been involved in some Wars in recent times other Countries have been involved in a lot more and a lot of innocents have been killed, quite recklessly on occasions. And this has happened, as recently as a few months ago in Afghanistan during Biden's Presidency.
A Mug? - You're kidding
Long Line of terrible Russian Leaders - Russia certainly haven't been blessed with great Leaders and some. notably Stalin, have been evil beyond belief.
But I don't believe history will judge Putin so badly, at least for his performance to this moment. Firstly it needs to be understood he has one of the hardest jobs in the World. He took over a fallen Superpower on it's knees with dire economic and social issues and has done a good job modernising Russia, improving infrastructure, rebuilding Russia's Military and enhancing Russia's Geopolitical status.
Putin does have a responsibility to the Russian people to stand up to the West and protect Russia's interests and in that space checking NATO power is not an unreasonable objective, Russia has been invaded by Western Powers more than enough times.
In my mind he has failed on issues of improving law and order, reducing corruption, providing welfare security for the elderly and the vulnerable and advancing democracy - or at least some kind of system that permits power sharing and succession and allowing alternative views.
Irreparable harm to the Russian People - not sure what you mean? Living standards are better for most. Relations with other Countries could, and should, be better but this is a 2 way street and there is no doubt the west exploited Russia's weaknesses when the Soviet Union collapsed. Democracy has gone backwards so if you are talking about this then we are in agreement
Junior partnership with PRC - this is to me more interesting than the Ukraine crisis. China may well eat Russia in one way or another. But China is dining on a lot of Countries at the moment. Whether it is better to be their ally or adversary is a question which will be answered sometime in the future.
Another great article from ASPI. Whilst it doesn't excuse what Putin's doing, it gives us a better understanding of what makes him tick and how Russian leaders and strategists perceive things. Take the 1990's, it was seen by the West as a time when Russia ''behaved'' but was viewed by Russia as a time when it was weak and the West took advantages of it. As mentioned in a previous post, the situation we have now is an accumulation of events, factors and events that occurred way before 2008 and 2014. Whether we disagree with it or no, as,well as the way it's conducting things, Russia has genuine grievances.
www.aspistrategist.org.au
In the summer of 1991, the expectation of a new Marshall Plan among the Soviet elites became almost universal. But many in Washington wanted to break up the Soviet Union for security reasons. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady advised President George H.W. Bush that America’s strategic priority was to see the Soviets become ‘a third-rate power, which is what we want’. During the 1990s, Zubok claims that 70–80% of Russians lived in poverty with the old Soviet social safety net gone and with rampant crime and mafia-like rule in most towns and regions.
Regarding the prospect of the incorporation of a democratising Russia into a larger Europe and NATO, the view was that the post-Soviet geopolitical space was too huge and unpredictable for integration within the Western orbit. The enlargement of NATO took place quickly, because the newly independent Baltic countries and Poland wanted to be free of the Russian military menace. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to join NATO, but the new US administration under Bill Clinton chose to offer Russia only ‘a partnership’ with the alliance because the general view in Washington was that Russia was simply too big to fully belong to NATO
Regarding the prospect of the incorporation of a democratising Russia into a larger Europe and NATO, the view was that the post-Soviet geopolitical space was too huge and unpredictable for integration within the Western orbit. The enlargement of NATO took place quickly, because the newly independent Baltic countries and Poland wanted to be free of the Russian military menace. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to join NATO, but the new US administration under Bill Clinton chose to offer Russia only ‘a partnership’ with the alliance because the general view in Washington was that Russia was simply too big to fully belong to NATO.
Yeltsin warned that NATO’s enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would ‘not shift one inch eastward from its present position’ once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany. Those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed formula
Why Putin sees the US, NATO and Ukraine as a threat | The Strategist
Why has Russia’s President Vladimir Putin become so aggressive in his attitude to the US, NATO and Ukraine? In this article, I begin by examining the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and how it ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
In the summer of 1991, the expectation of a new Marshall Plan among the Soviet elites became almost universal. But many in Washington wanted to break up the Soviet Union for security reasons. Treasury secretary Nicholas Brady advised President George H.W. Bush that America’s strategic priority was to see the Soviets become ‘a third-rate power, which is what we want’. During the 1990s, Zubok claims that 70–80% of Russians lived in poverty with the old Soviet social safety net gone and with rampant crime and mafia-like rule in most towns and regions.
Regarding the prospect of the incorporation of a democratising Russia into a larger Europe and NATO, the view was that the post-Soviet geopolitical space was too huge and unpredictable for integration within the Western orbit. The enlargement of NATO took place quickly, because the newly independent Baltic countries and Poland wanted to be free of the Russian military menace. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to join NATO, but the new US administration under Bill Clinton chose to offer Russia only ‘a partnership’ with the alliance because the general view in Washington was that Russia was simply too big to fully belong to NATO
Regarding the prospect of the incorporation of a democratising Russia into a larger Europe and NATO, the view was that the post-Soviet geopolitical space was too huge and unpredictable for integration within the Western orbit. The enlargement of NATO took place quickly, because the newly independent Baltic countries and Poland wanted to be free of the Russian military menace. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to join NATO, but the new US administration under Bill Clinton chose to offer Russia only ‘a partnership’ with the alliance because the general view in Washington was that Russia was simply too big to fully belong to NATO.
Yeltsin warned that NATO’s enlargement could lead to a new division in Europe. The US secretary of state, James Baker, reassured Gorbachev that NATO would ‘not shift one inch eastward from its present position’ once it had safely taken in a reunited Germany. Those words were never recorded in any mutually agreed formula
Last edited:
Rhetoric is one thing a partnership per see a completely different thing. Still early days and I could be wrong but I doubt if we'll see anything meaningful or tangible coming out of this arrangement between both countries.
More than it's invaded others?
Russia has invaded & been invaded many times. How did Finland become part of Russia? Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, western Ukraine, Crimea, Belarus, the Caucasus & (for over 100 years) central Poland? Russia invaded them.
The idea of Russia against the west is a new one. It always used to be multiple countries fighting each other, in multiple combinations. The Russian principalities played that game as enthusiastically as any others, & once Moscow became dominant & absorbed the others, so did Russia. It fought Britain, it was allied to Britain, it fought France, it was allied to France, it fought Prussia, it was allied to Prussia, it fought Austria, it was allied to Austria . . . .
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I've posted this before, but I don't think that Russia has genuine grievances regarding NATO or Europe. These grievances are mostly self-imagined or self-inflicted.
When people talk about Russia having red lines over Ukraine joining NATO, it's like saying Muslim fundamentalists have red lines over seeing women walk around without veils or wearing trousers. Doesn't really what they think, they don't have a veto. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign state. If Russia didn't want it to join NATO it shouldn't have annexed Crimea and started a war in Eastern Ukraine.
Bringing up alleged comments by a Secretary of State doesn't advance Russia's position one bit. Everyone knows that the US is a democracy and that mere words of one politician cannot bind a future administration, especially when the US itself does not run an organisation like NATO.
I agree, I doubt Russia or China will want to be bound to military action taken by the other. They may want to give the impression that they might support each other but I doubt they would go further than that.