andmar74 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:15 pm
So Nato will not impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine. We are going to sit back and watch Russia slaughter civilians. Later on, if Russia chooses to attack another non-Nato country, we will do nothing. Finland? Moldova? Georgia?
It's painful..
What if Russia threatens to nuke a European city if the sanctions are not lifted? Ignore it?
Then if Russia does nuke a city, will we do nothing? When is the red line crossed?
Thank God cooler heads are prevailing on our side, at least for the time being. I don't believe people understand the potential consequences of a no-fly zone. We had that kind of shocking poll just a few days ago showing 74% of Americans support imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine. Like WHAT!? Hold up, I'm as much against this illegal invasion as anyone else but that's just crazy. This would mean NATO forces shooting down Russian jets, and most likely WW3. I'm all for pumping Ukraine full of anti-air and anti-tank weaponry to fuel an insurgency and make this Russia's Iraq (or more fittingly, Vietnam), but getting the whole world vaporized in the process is not a solution.
As for where this stops...It will stop. Not in Ukraine. Maybe not even in Moldova. But if they try to go for any NATO states, such as Poland, Estonia, or Latvia, that's the end for all of us. It may not go nuclear right away, but at that point it's just a matter of desperation until one side uses nukes. If Russia pushes to France, we nuke them. If we push into Russia, they nuke us.
It sucks to hear, but those countries such as Moldova, Sweden, Finland, and Georgia which are not in NATO are on their own for now. You have to be part of the alliance before the invasion happens, you don't join after. The best we can do for them is accept them quickly, or short of that send a UN peacekeeping force. Russia's strategy is defined by fait accompli. They shoot first, ask questions later. Seize Crimea in a lightning operation. Now no one can touch Ukraine because the Russians are there. Station troops in Transnistria; no one can move, because the Russians are already there. Basically, once the Russians are there, you're done. We need to get ahead of them; let NATO, the EU, or UN be the ones there first. Then the onus is on Russia to declare WW3 by invading and killing troops of major world powers.
Last edited by Maximus on Sun Mar 06, 2022 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seize Crimea in a lightning operation. Now no one can touch Ukraine because the Russians are there. Station troops in Transnistria; no one can move, because the Russians are already there. Basically, once the Russians are there, you're done. We need to get ahead of them; let NATO, the EU, or UN be the ones there first.
In the old forum, I argued with PhoenixRu about the Ukraine. Surprisingly we both came to the same conclusion. Ukraine needed to be established as a neutral state. No NATO membership, no expectation that Ukraine would join in any trade sanctions against Russia, no threats by Russia to invade (at least that is what was implied in our "agreement").
The history after the Soviet Union is a little fuzzy to me. Still, as I remember it and from recent readings, Ukraine was allowed to become an independent state, but as part of negotiations it agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. It did so with assurances that it would not be invaded by Russia. Those assurance by Russia were when either Gorbachev or Boris Yeltsin were in power. Russia claims that at about that time NATO promised that there would be no new nations joining the alliance. Then, according to Russia, NATO proceeded to break that promise and allowed countries formally under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence to join NATO.
Putin wants to see Russia ascend to its former role as a genuine superpower. It aggravates Putin no end that so many former Warsaw Pact countries are now aligned with the West. He, therefore, wants to re-assert full control over as many of those countries as possible. Enrolling more countries into NATO enraged him. My reading is that this was for precisely the reasons you give, but looking from the other side of the divide.
Seize Crimea in a lightning operation. Now no one can touch Ukraine because the Russians are there. Station troops in Transnistria; no one can move, because the Russians are already there. Basically, once the Russians are there, you're done. We need to get ahead of them; let NATO, the EU, or UN be the ones there first.
In the old forum, I argued with PhoenixRu about the Ukraine. Surprisingly we both came to the same conclusion. Ukraine needed to be established as a neutral state. No NATO membership, no expectation that Ukraine would join in any trade sanctions against Russia, no threats by Russia to invade (at least that is what was implied in our "agreement").
The history after the Soviet Union is a little fuzzy to me. Still, as I remember it and from recent readings, Ukraine was allowed to become an independent state, but as part of negotiations it agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. It did so with assurances that it would not be invaded by Russia. Those assurance by Russia were when either Gorbachev or Boris Yeltsin were in power. Russia claims that at about that time NATO promised that there would be no new nations joining the alliance. Then, according to Russia, NATO proceeded to break that promise and allowed countries formally under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence to join NATO.
Putin wants to see Russia ascend to its former role as a genuine superpower. It aggravates Putin no end that so many former Warsaw Pact countries are now aligned with the West. He, therefore, wants to re-assert full control over as many of those countries as possible. Enrolling more countries into NATO enraged him. My reading is that this was for precisely the reasons you give, but looking from the other side of the divide.
...and here we are.
Two points:
1. NATO never promised to not expand eastward. There were some assurances made behind closed doors by lower level functionaries of a few NATO members that the alliance would not expand (highly irresponsible), but there was never any high level or formal pact that the entire alliance would not do so. The Russians argue the "spirit" of the understanding was broken. Well, I would think statesmen of a great power would have a better understanding of foreign relations than to rely on informal backdoor assurances that NATO would not expand. They knew NATO would expand, but there was no appetite to stop this, and thus they needed something to fall back on which would allow them to play the victim. Instead, they could have negotiated a treaty, perhaps including Russia joining NATO. I think this was the biggest missed opportunity for world peace. But as I said before, this may have been doomed to failure. After all, Russia was still a major power with a nuclear arsenal, and friction with the Americans would have been likely. Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ent-again/
2. In contrast to the above, Russia did sign a formal agreement, the Budapest Memorandum, to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of its inherited nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_ ... Assurances
I realize we're talking technicalities here, nitpicking around and ignoring the elephant in the room. You see, when the Russians say "NATO agreed to do this and that" they bring a legal argument. What they really intend is a moral argument. They really mean "NATO should not have expanded". That's a far more valid and interesting point. Should NATO have accepted more members?
There's no easy answer. Most Russians today will of course tell you "no". Many others, especially in those countries taken in, will say a resounding "yes". This is complicated by us looking at the problem in hindsight; of course, on the brink of WW3 over the matter, some might be inclined to agree with Russia. Yet after the Soviet collapse, things were much different than they are now. The specter of nuclear annihilation and WW3 with Russia vanished, and there was hope it would become a free, democratic country. Was NATO expansion a threat in that context, or an attempt to create a security umbrella for all of Europe, which even Russia could hope to join eventually? Who could have seen at that point the revanchist Russia of today.
And this is the crux of the matter; could the world have done more to stop someone like Putin from coming to power? Could we have saved the Russian people from poverty and shock capitalism? Could we have stopped the rampant corruption and theft that took place in those times, and ensured democracy blossomed? Optimists would say yes, of course. Realistically, Russia was still a nuclear great power, and foreign intervention in its internal affairs would probably always have been limited in scope. The US couldn't have just marched in and stopped the oligarchs from snapping up industries and properties, no more than it could have stopped former KGB or Communist Party elites from continuing to pollute Russia's nascent democracy.
Last edited by Maximus on Sun Mar 06, 2022 9:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Visa and Mastercard will both suspend operations in Russia
Sat 5 Mar 2022 23.55 GMT
Visa and Mastercard have announced tonight they will be suspending operations in Russia over the invasion of Ukraine.
Visa said in a statement that it would cut off transactions “over the coming days” and consequently cards issued in Russia would not work abroad as well as foreign issued cards in Russia.
Alfred Kelly, chairman and chief executive officer of the US-based digital payments company, said: “We are compelled to act following Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and the unacceptable events that we have witnessed.
“We regret the impact this will have on our valued colleagues, and on the clients, partners, merchants and cardholders we serve in Russia.
“This war and the ongoing threat to peace and stability demand we respond in line with our values.”
Mastercard issued a similar ban, stating that cards issued by Russian banks will no longer be supported by its network.
Over the past several days, we have continued to witness unprovoked, violent attacks on Ukraine and the tragic loss of innocent lives. The images are horrifying and heartbreaking. As we see this tragedy unfold, we believe we have a responsibility to ensure our products and services are not used in support of this unlawful war.
Earlier this week, Adobe took a series of steps to ensure the health and safety of our employees and provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
Effective immediately, Adobe will halt all new sales of Adobe products and services in Russia.
We have been complying with the government sanctions being imposed by the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom to ensure Adobe’s products and services are not being used by prohibited entities. In addition, we are terminating access to Adobe Creative Cloud, Adobe Document Cloud and Adobe Experience Cloud to Russian government-controlled media outlets.
To support the growing humanitarian crisis and refugee situation in the region, the Adobe Foundation has made a series of grants of over $1 million USD. The Foundation will focus on direct aid and medical assistance to communities in Ukraine, as well as resettlement and transportation needs for families fleeing the country and seeking resettlement status as refugees in neighboring countries. It will also provide investments to organizations that support journalists and photojournalists on the ground as part of our commitment to fighting misinformation. We are also providing ways for our employees to help, including matching employee donations.
We understand there is only so much one company can do to impact an unjustified invasion. But we also understand our civic and moral responsibility to support democracy and humanity. We are committed to doing everything we can to stand in support of those directly affected and with our entire Adobe community.
My translation of the analysis of the current situation in Russia by an alleged active FSB analyst. Buckle up for a long thread and definitely please share far & wide. The full text is over 2000 words. This is a highly insightful look behind the curtain - covers many subjects. I will add clarification comments inside parenthesis where necessary. So, let's roll:
I have hardly slept at all these days, at work at almost all times, I have brain-fog. Maybe from overworking, but I feel like I am in a surreal world.
The Pandora’s Box is open – a real global horror will begin by the summer – global famine is inevitable. Russia and Ukraine were the main suppliers of grain to the world. This year’s harvest will be smaller and logistical problems will result in a catastrophe. (MY COMMENTARY: I disagree that this will result in global famine.)
I can’t say what guided those in charge to decide to proceed with the execution of this operation, but now they are methodically blaming us (FSB). We are being scolded for our analysis. Recently, we have been increasingly pressured to prepare more reports. All of these political consultants and politicians and that powers-that-be are causing chaos. Most importantly, no one knew that there will be such a war – it was concealed from everyone. For example – you are being asked to analyze various outcomes and consequences of a meteorite attack (MY COMMENTARY: Here he most likely means the West’s sanctions) – you research the mode of attack, and you are being told that it’s just a hypothetical and not to stress on the details, so you understand the report is only intended as a checkbox, and the conclusions of the analysis must be positive for Russia, otherwise you basically get interrogated for not doing good work. So, you have to write that we have all necessary measures available to nullify the effects of a given type of attack. We are completely overworked. But then it turns out that the hypothetical has turned into reality, and the analysis we’ve done on that hypothetical is total trash.
We have no answer to the sanctions because of this.
No one knew there’d be such a war, so no one prepared for these sanctions.
It’s the flipside of the secrecy – since everyone was kept in the dark, how could we prepare for it?
Kadyrov has gone nuts. We were very close to a conflict with him because the Ukrainians through their disinformation about having received intel from the FSB on his squad in Kyiv. His squad was absolutely demolished before they even began to fight and they got blown to pieces. I do not have any info that it was an FSB leak to Ukraine, so I’d give it a 1-2% chance – but can’t exclude this possibility completely.
Our Blitzkrieg has totally collapsed. It is impossible to complete the task: If Zelensky and his deputies were captured in the first 3 days, all key buildings also captured, and they were forced to read an address of their surrender to the country, then Ukraine’s resistance would have likely dissolved to a minimal level. Theoretically. But then what? Even in this IDEAL outcome, there remained an unsolvable problem: Who is the counterparty to our negotiations? If we remove Zelensky – fine – who is going to sign the agreement? If with Zelensky, then that agreement is worthless after we remove him.
ОПЗЖ (The Opposition Party in Ukraine collaborating with Russia) has refused to cooperate. Medvechuk, the coward, ran away. There is another leader – Boyko, but he refused too, even his own people won’t understand him. Wanted to bring back Tsaryova, but even our guys are against him here in Russia. Bring back Yanukovich? But how? If we are saying we can’t occupy, then the newly formed government will be overthrown in 10 minutes as soon as we leave.
To occupy? Where would we find that many people? Commandant’s office, military police, counter-intelligence, security – even at minimum resistance from the Ukrainians, we’d need over 500,000 people, not including supply & logistics. There’s a rule, if you try to cover for bad quality leadership with quantity, you’ll make everything worse. And I repeat this would be the problem in the IDEAL SCENARIO, which does not exist.
And what now? We cannot announce general mobilization for two reasons: 1) Mobilization will implode the situation inside Russia: political, economic, and social.
2) Our logistics are already over-extended today. We can send a much large contingent into Ukraine, and what would we get? Ukraine – a territorially enormous country, and their hate towards us is astronomical. Our roads simply cannot accommodate the resupply of such convoys, and everything will come to a halt. And we can’t pull it off from the management side because of the current chaos.
These two reasons exist concurrently, although just one of them is enough to break everything.
With regards to Russian military losses: I don’t know the reality – no one does. There was some information the first 2 days, but now no one knows what is happening in Ukraine. We’ve lost contact with major divisions (!!) They may re-establish contact, or may dissipate under an attack, and even the commanders don’t know how many are dead, injured, or captured. Total dead is definitely in the thousands, maybe 10,000, maybe 5,000, or maybe just 2,000. But even at our command no one knows. But probably closer to 10,000. And we are not counting losses at DNR & LNR.
Now even we kill Zelensky or take him prisoner, nothing will change. The level of hate toward us is similar to Chechnya. And now, even those loyal to us in Ukraine are publicly against us.
Because all of this was planned at the top (in Russia), because we were told that such a scenario will not happen except only if we were to be attacked first. Because we were told that we need to maximize our threats in order to negotiate an outcome through peace. Because we were already preparing protests against Zelensky without ever considering invading Ukraine.
Now, civilian losses in Ukraine will follow a geometric pattern progression, and resistance against us will only get stronger. Infantries already tried to enter cities – out of 20 paratrooper groups, only one had “provisional” success. Recall the invasion of Mosul – it’s a rule – happens with every country, nothing new.
To hold a siege? Over the last decades in Europe – Serbia being the best example, cities can remain functional under siege for years.
Humanitarian convoys from Europe to Ukraine is only a matter of time.
Our conditional deadline is June. Conditional because in June there will be no economy left in Russia – there will be nothing left. By and large, next week there will be a collapse (in Russia) to either of the two sides, simply because the situation cannot remain under current conditions.
We have no analyses, we can’t make any forecasts in this chaos, no one will be able to say anything with any certainty (in Russia).
To act through intuition, especially with high emotions, this is no poker game. But our bets will have to grow in size with hope that some option will succeed.
The tragedy is that we can easily miscalculate, and as a result lose everything.
By and large, Russia does not have an out. There are no options for a possible victory, only of losses – this is it.
100% we’ve repeated our mistake from last century, when we decided to kick the “weak” Japan in order to achieve a quick victory, and it turned our army was in a state of total calamity. Then, we started a war till the victorious end, then we started conscripting the Bolsheviks for re-education in the army. Then these barely-known Bolsheviks picked up their anti-war slogans.
From the pluses: We did everything to ensure there wasn’t even a hint that we sent penal military units to the front. If you conscript political prisoners and the socially undesirables, the moral spirit of the army will be in the negative.
The enemy is motivated. Monstrously motivated. Knows how to fight, plenty of capable commanders. They have weapons and support. We will simply establish a precedent of human catastrophe in the world.
What we are afraid of the most: The top is trying to mask old problems with new problems. Largely for this reason Donbass happened in 2014 – We needed to distract the West from the Russian Spring in Crimea, so Donbass’ so-called crisis had to pull in all of the attention and become a bargaining chip. But even bigger problems started there. Then we decided to pressure Erdogan to get 4 pipes for the Southern Stream (gas) and entered Syria. This is after Suleimani (Islamic Revolutionary Guard) knowingly provided false info to us to solve his own problems.
As a result, we couldn’t resolve the problem with Crimea, and Donbass’ problems didn’t go away. Southern Stream was reduced to 2 pipes (gas), and Syria is hanging – we leave and Assad will be toppled and we will look like idiots, and staying there is hard and pointless.
I don’t know who come up with the “Blitzkrieg of Ukraine.” Had received all the real inputs, we would have at minimum pointed out that the initial plan is arguable, and that much has to be reassessed. A lot had to be reassessed.
Now we are in crap (PG language mine) up to our necks, and we don’t know what to do. “Denazification” and “demilitarization” are not analytical categories because they don’t have concretely formulated parameters by which meeting of the objectives can be evaluated.
Now we are stuck waiting until some mentally screwed up advisor convinces the top to start a conflict with Europe, with demands to reduce the sanctions – they either loosen the sanctions or war. What if the West refuses? In that instance I won’t exclude that we will be pulled into a real international conflict, just like Hitler in 1939. Our “Z” will be equated to the Swastika.
Is there a possibility of a localized nuclear strike? Yes. Not for any military objectives. Such a weapon won’t help with the breach of the defenses. But with a goal of scaring everyone else (The West).
We are plowing to create a scenario in which to blame everything on Ukraine. Naryshkin (Director of Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia) and his SVR is digging the ground to prove that Ukraine was secretly building nuclear weapons. F*&K. They are hammering at what we’ve already analyzed and closed the book on: We can’t just make up any evidence or proof and existence of specialists and Uranium. Ukraine has a ton of depleted isotope 238 – this is nothing. The production cycle is such that you can’t do it in secret.
A dirty bomb can’t be created in secret. Ukraine’s old nuclear power plants can only produce the material as a by-product in minimal amounts. The Americans have such monitoring at these plants with MAGATE that even talking about this is stupid.
Do you know what will start in a week? Let’s let it be even in 2 weeks. We are going to be so screwed we will start reminiscing about the good ol’ hungry days of the 90s. As the markets are being closed, Nabiullina appears to be taking the right steps, but it’s like plugging holes on a ship with your fingers. The situation will break through anyway and even stronger. Nothing will be solved in 3 or 5 or 7 days any longer.
Kadyrov is kicking his hoofs not without reason. They have their own adventures. He created a name for himself as the invincible – and if he falls down once his own people will remove him.
Next. Syria. “Guys – hold on, everything will end in Ukraine and then we will fortify our positions in Syria.” And now at any moment our contingent stationed there may run out of resources, and then ridiculous heat will come…. Turkey is closing the strait, and sending supplies to Syria by air is the same as heating an oven with cash. Please notice – this is all happening at the same time, and we don’t even have time to throw it all in one pile for analysis.
Our current position is like Germany in 1943-1944 – but that’s our STARTING position in Ukraine.
Sometimes I get lost in this overwork, sometimes feels as if this is just a dream and all is as it was before.
With regards to prisons – it will be worse. The nuts will start to get tightened till blood. Everywhere. To be frank, purely technically, this is the only way to maintain any control of the situation. We are already in total mobilization mode. But we can’t remain in this mode for long, but our timetables are unknown, and it will only get worse. Governance always goes astray from mobilization. And just imagine: You can sprint 100m – but try that in a marathon.
And so, with the Ukrainian question we lunged as if going for a 100m sprint, but turned out we’d signed up for a marathon.
And this is a rather brief overview of the current events.
To offer further cynicism, I don’t believe that Putin will press the red button to destroy the entire world.
First, it’s not one person that decides, and someone will refuse. There are lots of people there and there is no single “red” button.
Second, there are certain doubts that it actually functions properly. Experience shows that the more transparent the control procedures, the easier it is to identify problems. And where it’s mirky as to who controls what and how, but always reports full of bravado, is where there are always problems.
I am not sure that the “red button” system functions according to the declared data. Besides, plutonium fuel must be changed every 10 years.
Third, and this is the most disgusting and sad, I personally do not believe in Putin’s will to sacrifice himself when he does not even allow his closest ministers and advisors to be in his vicinity. Whether it’s due to his fear of COVID or a possible assassination is irrelevant. If you are scared for the most trusted people to be near you, then how could you possibly choose to destroy yourself and those dearest to you.
wjfox wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:40 am
Transcript below:
My translation of the analysis of the current situation in Russia by an alleged active FSB analyst. Buckle up for a long thread and definitely please share far & wide. The full text is over 2000 words. This is a highly insightful look behind the curtain - covers many subjects. I will add clarification comments inside parenthesis where necessary. So, let's roll:
It's a nice theory. Great for Ukrainian morale. But it's not too believable when you take into account the fact that Russian forces keep advancing in Ukraine and aren't anywhere close to being driven back to the border by Ukrainian forces. You can argue that maybe it's not going as smoothly as hoped for the Russians, or that their progress is slower and more costly than they planned for, but they're still making that progress and they still have the upper hand. Ukrainian victory remains a highly unlikely scenario, however much one might be rooting for them.
Russian forces ‘fire rockets at physics institute in Kharkiv with nuclear reactor inside’
17 minutes ago
Russia’s forces are firing rockets at a physics institute in Kharkiv which contains nuclear material and a reactor, Ukraine's national security service has claimed.
A strike on the nuclear facility could lead to “large-scale ecological disaster”, the security service warned.
It claimed that Moscow’s forces are firing missiles from Grad launchers, which do not have precise targeting, raising concerns that one could go astray.
