Also about geopolitics, Iran is a natural regional power and a country that has traditionally not been directly colonized by western powers that is starting to assert itself in the region.
Iran is also a major hub in west Asia and the Silk Road, not just east-west from China to the mideast but also north-south between south Asia/India and Russia. India will soon overtake Japan as the third largest economy, while Russia is on its way to the 5th largest economy PPP this decade, unless Germany somehow manages to reverse its looming energy crisis.
If you're at a level where you actually believe that Russia blew up its own pipelines, there is no way you could ever contemplate the likelihood that Bucha could have been a staged event.
Okay, so let's have it. What percentage likelihood do you put on Bucha being a staged event?
Guarantee that the Russian firehose of falsehoods will continue to claim that an agreement was made and that the US blocked it. Just like they continue to claim that Putin was compelled to invade in order to stop woke nazis but that he would somehow now agree to end the war without ever having addressed that point.
They will continue to dissemble a panoply of false and often contradictory claims because they aren't acting in good faith and don't care as long as they think they can trick another useful idiot.
1. It’s unsure there was any deal to be made. At the time I gave it roughly a 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right.
Even the Russians don't want to mess with the Arellano-Flix Tijuana drug cartel.
Russia struggled to equip and feed its troops at its own borders, are we really going to pretend like they can operate the logistics of supplying troops overseas. Their only option would be Wagner mercs.
If Russia wants to send troops to Mexico, let them have at it.
Was reading an article today and reminded again of just how corrupt Russia is and how that corruption involved Manafort and Trump.
According to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Comm bipartisan report (chaired by Rubio) on Russian interference in the 2016 election, Manafort was pressured by Russian intelligence to cause Trump to agree to hand over the Donbas to Russia by supporting the creation of an "autonomous" zone to be run by Yanukovich. If you don't remember who Yanukovich is/was, he was the President of Ukraine who was elected on the promise to help westernize Ukraine. In reality he was a Russian stooge who was bankrolled by Russian oligarchs doing Putin's bidding. Manafort was paid by a Russian oligarch to help Yanukovich win election and ultimately to betray Ukraine.
This is relevant to this thread for a number of reasons.
First - disingenuous Russian shills will often claim that the Maidan Revolution overthrew a "democratically" elected president. This is misinformation. Yanukovich was a crook who was under Putin's thumb the whole time and had no interest in serving Ukraine.
Second - disingenuous Russian shills ignore that Russia's support for Trump came along with a request that he support Russia's interference in Ukraine. It's no coincidence that the 2016 GOP policy platform toward Russia/Ukraine was modified by Trump's team when he locked up the nomination.
Third - disingenuous Russian shills still pretend that Putin has noble intentions or is somehow catering to the will of the people. All he cares about are his own interests and he's willing to use any means necessary to get them. He succeeded in helping Trump get elected but failed in thinking Trump would be capable enough to help Putin get his way in Ukraine, although not for lack of trying. Once Putin realized he was never going to have another chance to steal/control Ukraine through a puppet government or other corruption, he chose to invade. The reason he didn't invade during Trump's presidency is because his best chances lied with Trump's corruption.
I'm not suggesting that anyone read the ~1,000 page senate report, much of which is redacted, but there is plenty of evidence in there about how Putin attempted to leverage his relationship with Manafort/Trump in order to achieve his objectives in Ukraine. You should be very weary of anyone claiming that Putin all of the sudden decided in 2021 or 2022 that he needed to do something about woke nazis or any other nonsense in Ukraine. He has been engaged in a continual effort for decades to turn Ukraine into a puppet state or to destroy it entirely. With Trump out of office and unlikely to ever win again, Putin saw his opportunity to steal Ukraine through corruption slip away and he decided he was willing to go to war over it.
If you take away one thing from this message, it's that if you don't choose to ignore the pro-Putin shills in this thread, you should be very skeptical of any claim they make which is favorable to Russia. As noted in the "firehose of falsehoods" article I referenced recently, even when they are factually accurate, they are doing so in an intentionally misleading way (and of course in a way that is often contradictory to other falsehoods they share). So they will describe the Maidan Revolution as the overthrow of a "democratically elected" President when reality is that it was the overthrow of a corrupt puppet government installed by Putin.
You're taking CEPA's spin on the Minsk Agreements at face value, directly and uncritically quoting their position on those agreements. CEPA is funded by weapon manufacturers (Lockheed Martin, BAE, Leonardo), Ukrainian oligarch (Pinchuk) and State Dept players (NED, NATO, Firestone Ashe, US Dept of State). The signatories of the Minsk Agreements themselves, president Hollande of France, Angela Merkel and president Poroshenko all came out and unequivocally stated recenty that they had no intention of abiding by these agreements. they used the Minsk Agreements as a stalling tactic in order to arm Ukraine enough so that it is capable of crushing the rebels in the Donbass.
Putin was widely criticized at home for not having come to the aid of the Donbass rebels in 2014, his main opposition at home are right wing nationalists and left wing communists.
In 2014, there was a rebellion in the southern and eastern half of Ukraine against the Maidan Coup, which overturned a democratically elected president, a sort of successful January 6 coup that was spearheaded by violent armed militias with the support of the full support US foreign policy apparatus.
In Odessa, about 60 russophone anti-Maidan non-violent protesters were burned to death, shot or beaten to death by Ukrainian nationalists:
Similar rebellions erupted in the Donbass and other rebel regions like Mariupol. The latter were suppressed by the stationing of outside forces in the region, notably the Azov Battalion, which was made up of central/western Ukrainian nationalists that viewed the locals as hostile.
Quote:
Were the Cult of Bandera (surprisingly led by their Jewish president!) threatening to invade Russia? No.
They were most definitely set to invade the Donbass and Crimea for one. You might view the Donbass as Ukrainian territory, but the Kiev government forfeits its legitimacy the moment it treats local minorities as second-class citizens and actively represses them with armed force, limiting the use of their native language and imposing on them a form of nationalism that considers their culture and religion as outcast, going as far as to ban their religion and burn their churches.
#Zelensky's top advisor Arestovych resigns after interview stating #Ukraine air defense blew up their own civilian apartment building. He is also on record stating “Zelensky has declared war on Christianity. This is when SBU entered…the Ukrainian Orthodox Church" #UkraineRussiapic.twitter.com/qU7pBvnVC2
This dogma has led to the dissolution of Ukraine, as stated by Arestovich, who was until very recently the leading advisor of Zelensky. He tapped out seeing that the war is unwinnable, and that the Kiev regime has no future.
You've now made the bolded claim re Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko twice. How about a link? I'm dubious of that claim.
Also, it bears mentioning how the Minsk Agreements came to be. If Putin doesn't invade Ukraine, we don't have those.
I noticed you didn't actually address the claim made by Kurt Volker and instead attacked CEPA. Volker's claim was very specific - that Russia failed to withdraw its troops, did not disarm illegal armed groups, and did not return control of and of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine. As you like to say - those are Facts that you have not disputed. And for the record, I don't take the claims of CEPA at face value - but I do put credence in the specific claim of Volker which is in accordance with established fact.
It is odd that you're absolutely convinced the Western countries never intended to comply with the Minsk Agreement and contend that the West violated the agreements (your words "These agreements were however violated by Kiev and its NATO backers") but are completely willing to overlook and excuse Russia's violation of those same agreements from day 1.
You made a VERY interesting assertion above, that "the Kiev government forfeits its legitimacy the moment it treats local minorities as second-class citizens and actively represses them with armed force, limiting the use of their native language and imposing on them a form of nationalism that considers their culture and religion as outcast, going as far as to ban their religion and burn their churches."
I'm not sure that's a recognized international standard (pretty sure it isn't). But it is your standard. Please apply it to Putin and Russia. Putin literally kills his political opponents, or only jails them if they're lucky. He represses all minority views. He uses his military to invade sovereign countries and unleashes his secret police on his own population. He assassinates ex patriots who criticize him. And how does he treat homosexuals? He just signed more laws discriminating against them (https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/europe/russia-lgbtq-propaganda-law-signed-by-putin-intl/index.html)
You posted a twitter link discussing that a guy named Arestovich resigned and criticized Zelensky. Arestovich is still alive. What happens to high profile Russian government officials who criticize Putin? Not many do anymore because he disappears them.
As noted in my earlier post, Putin has supported genocide and war crimes in other countries. Oh, and he's also conscripting minority groups and sending them to die in Ukraine
And there is no doubt that Russia projects its bad acts to many parts of the world. You can't say that about Ukraine.
By your own standard, how does Russia have any legitimacy? Don't be a hypocrite - apply the standard to Russia.
I am no defender of Ukraine - its a corrupt country with a lot of bad actors. I don't particularly care for Zelensky and really don't like the cult of personality that the media has created around him. I'm not an unconditional supporter of the current US policy.
But all of that being said, I have have no delusions as to who the bad actor is here. It is Russia and Putin. There are no excuses for the unlawful invasions of his neighbors and the war crimes committed (or supported) in places like Ukraine, Syria, etc.
I truly don't understand why anyone would go to such great lengths to make moral arguments justifying what Russia/Putin have done. Yet there you are.
Given his poor track record, perhaps you could find some alternate sources? Certainly don't expect people here to adopt his "new point" or old ones as reliable.
Was reading an article today and reminded again of just how corrupt Russia is and how that corruption involved Manafort and Trump.
According to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Comm bipartisan report (chaired by Rubio) on Russian interference in the 2016 election, Manafort was pressured by Russian intelligence to cause Trump to agree to hand over the Donbas to Russia by supporting the creation of an "autonomous" zone to be run by Yanukovich. If you don't remember who Yanukovich is/was, he was the President of Ukraine who was elected on the promise to help westernize Ukraine. In reality he was a Russian stooge who was bankrolled by Russian oligarchs doing Putin's bidding. Manafort was paid by a Russian oligarch to help Yanukovich win election and ultimately to betray Ukraine.
False. The Donbas wasn't handed over. In addition, President Trump added on stiffer sanctions on Russia, then Democrats added more, then President Trump added more. The GOP and DNC played a game of who could be tougher on Russia.
Second - disingenuous Russian shills ignore that Russia's support for Trump
Specifically, how did Russia help candidate Trump. Last I read Russia took out $70,000 in Facebook ads on both sides. Please be specific, with sources.
President Trump allegedly told Putin, "You invade Ukraine, I bomb Moscow."
Putin never invaded under President Trump.
Putin invaded under President Biden; the same Biden family with zero expertise in Ukraine, but who's family made Millions on (corrupt) Ukraine.
BTW, the Russian pee tape story was a DNC / FBI fabrication. It was Democrats and their organization that hired the dossier "sub source", Russian-American Igor Danchenko. Danchenko worked at the liberal Brookings Institute. The FBI in 2017 made Danchenko a paid confidential informant, which helped hide him from investigations. In 2020 he was released and paid $200,000 by the FBI.
Third - ... He [Putin] succeeded in helping Trump get elected ...
Please provide specifics and sources.
...but failed in thinking Trump would be capable enough to help Putin get his way in Ukraine, although not for lack of trying.
There is some twisted logic. In fact, President Trump issued dire consequences if Putin entered Ukraine, increased sanctions, increased American energy production, and provided Ukraine with Javelin missiles, sniper rifles, and rocket launchers. (Obama never provided 'lethal aid'.)
The 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers were sold to Ukraine. ABC News: "The missiles were the first lethal military assistance provided to Ukraine by the United States in its fight against Russian-supported separatists in eastern Ukraine since that fighting began in 2014."
I'm not suggesting that anyone read the ~1,000 page senate report...
Actually, the whole world saw the campaign from a basement and the Afghanistan implosion, along with our corrupt and incompetent military leaders abandon over $50 Billion worth of military gear in the desert. So he knew now was the time to act.
Blinken, Austin, and Sullivan are truly Obama's C Team.
Also, it bears mentioning how the Minsk Agreements came to be. If Putin doesn't invade Ukraine, we don't have those.
I've mentioned this before, but Putin claims that Russia isn't bound by Minsk and was not a signatory, which is obviously untrue. Minsk was DOA because Putin never had any intention of honoring it, the same way he treats all other international agreements and norms. He views everything as a tool to enable him to achieve his aims but never to limit him.
As you've pointed out, Putin and Russia violated the Budapest memo which is what precipitated the conflict thst led to Minsk. Putin doesn't just have unclean hands, his are covered in blood and he and his propagandists blame the victims for all of his crimes.
While I appreciate your point of view here, it may bear repeating that you will never receive a genuine response from the shills as they refuse to ever acknowledge any criticism of Putin and will just use your post to launch another "firehose of falsehoods." The way the Russian propaganda machine works, they enjoy any sort of engagement or criticism because it allows them to repeat their misinformation. To the extent you receive any replies, that's what it will look like.
While I appreciate your point of view here, it may bear repeating that you will never receive a genuine response from the shills as they refuse to ever acknowledge any criticism of Putin and will just use your post to launch another "firehose of falsehoods." The way the Russian propaganda machine works, they enjoy any sort of engagement or criticism because it allows them to repeat their misinformation. To the extent you receive any replies, that's what it will look like.
Your whole approach to posting is completely absurd, over-the-top and soviet-like, wth is the "Russian propaganda machine" and why is it a thing on a Cal sports message board?
Also, it bears mentioning how the Minsk Agreements came to be. If Putin doesn't invade Ukraine, we don't have those.
I've mentioned this before, but Putin claims that Russia isn't bound by Minsk and was not a signatory, which is obviously untrue. Minsk was DOA because Putin never had any intention of honoring it, the same way he treats all other international agreements and norms. He views everything as a tool to enable him to achieve his aims but never to limit him.
Yeah, Russia claims that it's really the separatist groups in the Donbas that need to abide by Minsk, when pretty much everyone knows Russia is funding and coordinating these groups. Remember this when the Putin stans talk about the West helping train and supply the Ukrainian army like it's all our aggression; Russia has been doing all of that and more on their side.
The argument that the West shouldn't be involved is essentially an argument to let Russia win.
Given his poor track record, perhaps you could find some alternate sources? Certainly don't expect people here to adopt his "new point" or old ones as reliable.
MacGregor has been right both on the most important points and in the general picture:
-Ukraine has sustained very heavy and disproportionate losses, a ratio of well over 5 to 1. -Russia has the upper hand militarily, and has near-complete escalatory dominance -Ukraine's military prospects are grim
whereas the MSM has completely obscured these facts so far, only now are we starting to see cracks emerging into their narrative of Ukrainian military success. Articles like these, reflecting the reality on the ground, are only starting to emerge in the MSM:
The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.
Such wars tend to be won as indeed World War I was by the side with the demographic and industrial resources to hold out longest. Russia has more than three times Ukraine's population, an intact economy and superior military technology.
This is a point MacGregor has been driving for months now, his analyses have been completely ignored, and his character attacked. Well the truth is catching up with his critics now.
MacGregor was wrong on some points, mainly because Russia did not escalate its military commitment to their Ukrainian campaign until recently. But he is right on the big picture, what is really going on, and the very nature of this war.
Also, it bears mentioning how the Minsk Agreements came to be. If Putin doesn't invade Ukraine, we don't have those.
I've mentioned this before, but Putin claims that Russia isn't bound by Minsk and was not a signatory, which is obviously untrue. Minsk was DOA because Putin never had any intention of honoring it, the same way he treats all other international agreements and norms. He views everything as a tool to enable him to achieve his aims but never to limit him.
Yeah, Russia claims that it's really the separatist groups in the Donbas that need to abide by Minsk, when pretty much everyone knows Russia is funding and coordinating these groups. Remember this when the Putin stans talk about the West helping train and supply the Ukrainian army like it's all our aggression; Russia has been doing all of that and more on their side.
It's pointless to argue with you about who broke the Misk Agreements, I could quote Merkel, Hollande and Poreshenko directly boasting about how they considered Minsk a stalling tactic in order to rearm Ukraine and never meant to abide by it, and you would still say it's the Russians' fault it fell through.
Quote:
The argument that the West shouldn't be involved is essentially an argument to let Russia win.
Here however there is an important and basic argument to be made: Russia is going to win regardless of western involvement. This war has a basic underlining factor that Russia has escalatory dominance, which allows it to see through a war of attrition on its doorstep, they have the quality and the quantity, as MacGregor stated in the video above.
Supporting Ukraine and extending the war is only going to add to the bloodbath, with Ukraine bearing 80%-90% of the human cost.
The people who have planned this war know this (although even they have underestimated Russian capacities due to their hubris), but not the war cheerleaders, who have been led to believe that Ukraine would roll Russia back, that the Russians are a culturally backwards and inept nation, and so forth.
Ukraine should have been steered towards a political settlement with Russia, for its own best interest and long term survival, there was a great window for this as early as last Fall after they had great results. Since then, another 100,000+ Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or wounded, and Ukraine is running out of men, now having to snag conscripts on the streets and in their homes.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.
...Throughout "all of this scheming," the source said, "some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, 'Don't do this. It's stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.'" Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan's interagency group: "We have a way to blow up the pipelines."
What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, "If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. "I want to be very clear to you today," she said in response to a question. "If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward."
Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.
"It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it," the source said. "The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn't get it or ignored it."
Biden's and Nuland's indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline "no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it."
The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, "There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do itbut it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea."
The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he'd saidthat is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, "Bill Burns comes back and says, 'Do it.'"
...On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water's surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.
Given his poor track record, perhaps you could find some alternate sources? Certainly don't expect people here to adopt his "new point" or old ones as reliable.
MacGregor has been right both on the most important points and in the general picture:
-Ukraine has sustained very heavy and disproportionate losses, a ratio of well over 5 to 1. -Russia has the upper hand militarily, and has near-complete escalatory dominance -Ukraine's military prospects are grim
whereas the MSM has completely obscured these facts so far, only now are we starting to see cracks emerging into their narrative of Ukrainian military success. Articles like these, reflecting the reality on the ground, are only starting to emerge in the MSM:
The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.
Such wars tend to be won as indeed World War I was by the side with the demographic and industrial resources to hold out longest. Russia has more than three times Ukraine's population, an intact economy and superior military technology.
This is a point MacGregor has been driving for months now, his analyses have been completely ignored, and his character attacked. Well the truth is catching up with his critics now.
MacGregor was wrong on some points, mainly because Russia did not escalate its military commitment to their Ukrainian campaign until recently. But he is right on the big picture, what is really going on, and the very nature of this war.
You need to read the NYT article more closely. It actually confirms MacGregor was wrong in all his prior predictions of Russia winning.
"Russia is expected to punch hard, looking to reverse nearly a year of cascading failure. While a renewed attack on Kyiv is now considered improbable, Russian forces will likely try to recover territories they lost last fall, as well as take full control of the Donbas, a key objective of Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin."
Please provide a citation (other than MacGregor) for the reputable claim that "Ukraine has sustained very heavy and disproportionate losses, a ratio of well over 5 to 1." As I mentioned, information is hard to come by, but I've seen lots of report claiming the exact opposite - i.e., Russian losses exceed Ukrainian.
To be clear, a tweet with supposedly "mossad" confirmed numbers is not reputable. That tweet which is a few pages back was false in terms of the claimed casualties.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
If by battle tested you mean decimated by losses, lacking in modern equipment, and without competent professional leadership, then ok.
Russia is a second rate power - which is actually the best argument for why the US has no national interests at stake in Ukraine. The only reason they deserve any attention is the nuclear arsenal. If he builds up his military, it will strengthen NATO.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
If by battle tested you mean decimated by losses, lacking in modern equipment, and without competent professional leadership, then ok.
Russia is a second rate power - which is actually the best argument for why the US has no national interests at stake in Ukraine. The only reason they deserve any attention is the nuclear arsenal. If he builds up his military, it will strengthen NATO.
Then why the Russian advancement along multiple fronts the past two weeks, including Bakhmut being hemmed in?
Why is Ukraine resorting to kidnapping young and old men off the streets?
Where did Ukraine's 5000 pieces of tanks, armoured carriers, etc., go? Jiffy Lube?
Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.
...Throughout "all of this scheming," the source said, "some working guys in the CIA and the State Department were saying, 'Don't do this. It's stupid and will be a political nightmare if it comes out.'" Nevertheless, in early 2022, the CIA working group reported back to Sullivan's interagency group: "We have a way to blow up the pipelines."
What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, "If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. "I want to be very clear to you today," she said in response to a question. "If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward."
Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.
"It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it," the source said. "The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn't get it or ignored it."
Biden's and Nuland's indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline "no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it."
The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, "There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do itbut it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea."
The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he'd saidthat is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, "Bill Burns comes back and says, 'Do it.'"
...On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water's surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.
Biden inexplicably lifted Trump's ban/sanctions on NS 2 when entering office - w/o any concession from Russia. Similar to what he did with Iran. Plain stupid.
But I'm told by some here Biden is the best foreign policy president since Kennedy.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
If by battle tested you mean decimated by losses, lacking in modern equipment, and without competent professional leadership, then ok.
Russia is a second rate power - which is actually the best argument for why the US has no national interests at stake in Ukraine. The only reason they deserve any attention is the nuclear arsenal. If he builds up his military, it will strengthen NATO.
Then why the Russian advancement along multiple fronts the past two weeks, including Bakhmut being hemmed in?
Why is Ukraine resorting to kidnapping young and old men off the streets?
Where did Ukraine's 5000 pieces of tanks, armoured carriers, etc., go? Jiffy Lube?
Because Russia has a tactical advantage in those limited areas and the Ukrainian army is overstretched. This is not hard to explain and doesn't mean the Russian army is "battle tested" or first rate.
Colonel Douglass McGregor alleges that the Pentagon now knows victory is impossible, and they relayed that message two months ago to the White House. The politicians (Biden, Blinken, Sullivan?) haven't accepted that reality.
He goes further. He believes this could end NATO, and Russia has gotten much stronger. Putin has plans to build a 1.5 Million military, and his Military is battle and field tested.
If by battle tested you mean decimated by losses, lacking in modern equipment, and without competent professional leadership, then ok.
Russia is a second rate power - which is actually the best argument for why the US has no national interests at stake in Ukraine. The only reason they deserve any attention is the nuclear arsenal. If he builds up his military, it will strengthen NATO.
Then why the Russian advancement along multiple fronts the past two weeks, including Bakhmut being hemmed in?
Why is Ukraine resorting to kidnapping young and old men off the streets?
Where did Ukraine's 5000 pieces of tanks, armoured carriers, etc., go? Jiffy Lube?
Because Russia has a tactical advantage in those limited areas and the Ukrainian army is overstretched. This is not hard to explain and doesn't mean the Russian army is "battle tested" or first rate.
I guess you must have skipped over the report I've posted last week from the Australian officer who has been fighting in the Donbass for month with the Ukrainian army, there is a lot of information in this 4min excerpt:
Australian mercenary: “Wagner is near peer.” -> He describes the overmatch in combat capability between Wagner and Ukrainian forces around Bakhmut. pic.twitter.com/TLiBiqrEZ7
-Russian forces better equipped -Use more modern tactics -Have "blue force tracking", meaning electronically tracking their friendlies, while Ukraine doesn't -Backed by heavy artillery -Not taking a lot of losses, but inflicting many -Ukrainians don't rotate their forces -The Russians have "total capabilities overmatch"
