Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Except we don’t agree. Because everything we know about Russia came from either some intelligence services and/or was reported by the media. So, intelligence and the media are bad, and can’t be trusted, so really, do we know that Russia has EVER done anything bad? Nope, we don’t, so LEAVE RUSSIA ALONE!

It get fucking old, and you’re goddamned well aware that you use that approach to de facto excuse any wrongdoing by genuine bad actors.

It's funny watching you lob claims of logical fallacy at others, while you wallow around in them yourself.

Here's the post. You either agree with it or you don't. Or you deflect to something about the "SVR press inbox". Carry on. 

Really shocked to see the NYT doing stenography for the intelligence community. 

 

ETA: Apologies to others for how that comment devolved into this. This is truly one of the best treads on this board at the moment, so will bow out and let it proceed. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

They would get a longer leash if not the long list of failures costing American lives, not to note the less easily measured endpoints.  

But it's really great that pointing out the failures of the US IC and the intertwined US media becomes an exercise in excusing them because all the bad things that we agree Russia has done. 

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.

And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 

BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext

France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack

Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack

Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack

NY Post 😲  US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine

How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.
And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 
BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext
France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack
Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack
Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack
NY Post   US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine
How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

He fucking only and always attacks the messenger, with perfect consistency with respect to - PURELY coincidentally - the exact same viewpoints spouted by Tucker and his ilk. His “what, this little old thing?” act about his post, which had a transparent and purposeful agenda, is indeed chefs kiss perfection.

He will never address the substance. He is everything he accuses others of being. And it’s pretty much perfectly on-brand for him to come over and bring his standard schtick over here to fuck up what otherwise is a great thread.

Everything Anastasis touches turns to shit (recipe threads excepted, but give him time….)
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Remember in 2014 when a bunch of Russians just took their patches and insignia off their uniforms and the world media seriously debated if they were really Russian soldiers or not?  That was wild, right? Yeah, Putin learned that he can half-ass this stuff and it will give him all the cover he needs. 

Or in 2018 when hundreds of Russian "mercenaries" attacked a small group of 40 or so Green Berets and Marines in Syria, and American artillery and airpower absolutely slaughtered them.  I'm surprised that didn't get more play worldwide, and I have a hard time believing that was just a group of mercenaries hired by the Syrians to go attack an American outpost.  Not a lot of PMCs would be foolish enough to say "okay, sure, we'll attack an American outpost, that has American artillery and aerial coverage."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Hitler also didn’t have spy satellites and was fighting a two front war. Images of China readying an invasion and landing force would make for interesting tabletop analysis. I wonder what a carrier battle group parked in the Taiwan Strait would mean for their planners? 

Don't have to be that close, and don't have to completely shut down Chinese aerial and naval forces - just knock down enough that they never get a solid beachhead established.  

People think of seaborne invasions in terms of 1944 Normandy, but unlike 1944, the Chinese do not have the luxury of parking big-ass cargo ships 10 or 20 miles off the coast of Taiwan and start unloading troops into simple landing craft, all the while without being attacked by precision missiles.  It doesn't take many missiles to completely wreck, or at the very least, really spread out the Chinese forces, and those kinds of craft are easily sunk.

On D-Day, we landed nearly 160,000 Americans with around 5,000 landing craft.  The Chinese have around 60 dedicated landing/assault craft in their navy.

They also have around 220 transport craft in their air force, but even then they are highly limited - I've seen reports that they can only airlift around one division of paratroopers at any one time, and even that requires a lot of time (since some of those craft are small). 

I know people say they will rely on their civil aviation airliners, but holy fuck those things would get shot down fast, and if they are doing anything other than dropping paratroopers really close to the shore, they will get shot down.  If they try to land, they need long runways in Taiwan that are easily destroyed by the Taiwanese (which they would do if needed).  Dudes with machine guns  in the buildings around the airports would shred those airliners

It's a weird thing - it's not quite as bad as Germany's lack of ability to invade England in WWII, but it puts China in the position of just having to kill a shitload of civilians as their main means of attack and hoping that's enough for Taiwan to surrender.  Slaughtering civilians left and right won't play well on the world stage, and would make the Chinese military look weak.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I’d imagine Xi’s idea of acceptable losses would make Stalin blush.

Doubtful……HIGHLY doubtful.  Stalin is still about at the top when it comes to killing his own people . Mao was worse, but Uncle Joe held his own.

I don’t think anything would get a rise out of that sick fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

I get the skepticism given what happened with Iraq 2.0 (I really do), and I'm sure intelligence agencies from across the globe use the press for propaganda purposes. But taking a swipe at the NYTimes for reporting what a Pentagon spokesman says is bullshit. In their own reporting, the NYTimes takes note that the Pentagon didn't provide any evidence.

And they're not the only US media outlet running with this story. The Euros are reporting it too. And, besides, would you really expect them not to report it? 

BBC Ukraine tensions: US alleges Russian plot to fake invasion pretext

France 24 US claims evidence of Moscow plan for 'false flag' Ukrainian attack

Deutsche Welle US alleges Russian plot to fabricate Ukraine attack

Associate Press US says new intel shows Russia plotting false flag attack

NY Post 😲  US says Russia planned fake video as ‘false flag’ to invade Ukraine

How about you address the substance of the report rather than attack the messenger(s)? Do you, personally, find the allegation to be credible? Why or why not? 

Like I said in the Joe Biden thread. "WMD are in the middle east." Paraphrasing, but you get the schtick, this isn't new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Wow Shady, a lot to digest there and I’d pay to subscribe to your newsletter.

Yeah, I gotta watch it or I'll end up deep even deeper in the weeds, and nobody wants that. But I really do believe that we are in the middle of a very critical phase in EU and Transatlantic politics that has the potential to be a watershed moment which analysts will eventually identify as a spot where things started to change into a new era of multi-polarity. Europe is flat footed here, but necessity is going to require it to catch up.

 

There is an intrinsic pulling of attention to the East - particularly with the Germans - and there is very much a conflict within the German elites themselves as to whether a third-way/triangulation position is viable. One of the things Wilkerson in the above video talks about is Colin Powell saying to him in 1989, "After Mitterrand and Kohl are gone, the future leaders of Europe will not have their identity re atlanticism firmly rooted in the actual experience of the War. That's when the transatlantic relationship will fray and then sever." I think we are simply dealing with this natural drift of a relationship that is exacerbated by lots and lots of mercantile interests in Russia and China. 

 

Again, I go back to the above video at the 10:10 mark where you actually have a DW anchor saying, "The trust that was broken by the US arising out of Iraq War II lingers in the minds of Europeans to this very day. We see it every day in our reporting. There is a suspicion that the US wants war and that its end-game is the establishment of perpetual war which demands the continuous production of weapons. Is there validity in this suspicion?" To which Wilkerson replies, "there sure is."

 

This is unbelievable content coming from German state media. It is far and away the most criticial that I have ever seen DW and I really don't see that it is being accurately covered in the US at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course this is going on now.

Quote

BEIJING — President Xi Jinping of China on Friday offered firm support to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in the Kremlin’s showdown with the West over Ukraine, strengthening a relationship that presents a continuing challenge to the United States’ dominance on the world stage.

In a highly choreographed display of solidarity, the two leaders met in Beijing ahead of the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, the first meeting that Mr. Xi has held in person with a foreign counterpart in nearly two years.

It comes at a moment of escalating tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine. Mr. Putin has amassed more than 100,000 troops to his neighbors north, south and east in what NATO allies view as a menacing prelude to an attack.

In a lengthy joint statement, China accused the United States of stoking protests in Hong Kong and encouraging independence in Taiwan, while Russia said the United States was playing a similarly destabilizing role in Ukraine.

“Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions,” according to the 5,300-word joint statement released by the Kremlin. It said both nations “intend to counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext, oppose color revolutions and will increase cooperation in the aforementioned areas.”

China has said that the world should not be divided into the kind of power blocs that defined the era when the Soviet Union and United States were the two dominant superpowers. And on Friday, China sided with Russia on one of its key security demands: an end to NATO expansion to the east and closer to Russia’s borders.

“The sides oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized Cold War approaches,” the statement said.

Although the intention behind the troop buildup remains uncertain, the Kremlin has accused the United States of exaggerating the threat of an invasion and of raising tensions by deploying its own troops to Eastern Europe. This week, Mr. Putin said the United States was trying to goad the Kremlin into action and complained that the West had ignored Russia’s demands for security guarantees.

In scenes initially shown on Russian state television, Mr. Putin greeted Mr. Xi on a red carpet at the government guesthouse in western Beijing, raising his hand in greeting. The Chinese leader responded, through a translator: “Hello! I’m very glad to see you.”

Mr. Putin told him that the Chinese-Russian relationship had “taken on a truly unprecedented character.” “It is an example of a dignified relationship that helps each of us develop while supporting each other’s development,” Mr. Putin said.

After their meeting, Mr. Putin will attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, as the most prominent of nearly two dozen world leaders whose attendance has blunted the impact of a “diplomatic boycott” by President Biden and other leaders of democratic nations.

Despite extraordinary measures both men have taken during the coronavirus pandemic, neither leader wore a mask as they greeted each other.

In the days leading up to the meeting — the 38th between the two leaders — Beijing expressed support for Mr. Putin’s grievances and it joined Russia to try to block action on Ukraine at the United Nations Security Council.

Although not a party to the conflict, the Chinese government has viewed the showdown as a test of American influence and resolve that could distract Mr. Biden from his administration’s focus on China as the pre-eminent strategic rival of the 21st century.

Any new Chinese promises of economic and political support for Mr. Putin could undermine Mr. Biden’s strategy to ostracize the Russian leader for the military buildup. They could also signal a tectonic shift in the rivalry between the United States and China, with possible reverberations from Europe to the Pacific.

Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin on Friday signaled that their countries would work to establish closer ties on trade, diplomacy and security.

“Friendship between the two states has no limits,” the pair said in their joint statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/03/world/russia-ukraine-xi-putin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Paid in Euros.  Is there any meaning in that?

everything russia and china are doing is aimed to weaken american influence.  one of their "close your eyes and make a wish!" dreams has been to destroy the well-bastioned petrodollar.  if they settle in euros it weakens the reliance on USD. this is one of their arrows against that castle wall.  it's not really anything to worry about, but every rockslide starts with a few pebbles.  what would be unmeasurably worse is if in the future russia and china got close enough to where they sign a mutual defense treaty.  that's the rockslide which crushes traffic below. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Agree.  Largely because there are a few very knowledgeable individuals sharing perspectives and back and forth that you will not get from American media coverage. 

How about we defer to those actually in the theatre of operation?  The Ukrainians seem very lukewarm about this entire thing?  As are other EU leaders.  Going so far as to directly blame the US and the MSM for inflammatory rhetoric that is doing more harm than good. 

We just green lit another 3K+ troops to Poland and Romania which is on top of the earlier deployments and existing troops already stationed there.  An entire mechanized division and parts of the 82nd from Bragg as well.  Problem is, this is not a deterrent force.  So what are they doing exactly?  We stated initially that we were going to seek economic sanctions, then there was this massive pivot from the WH?  This is just exacerbating things even more.  

Doesn't Putin, among other things, want the US to formally drop any talks about Ukraine being a part of NATO?  Senator Hawley asked the obvious question as to why we don't do just that?  As things have escalated, does anyone thing Ukraine being a member is ever going to be a viable option?  Or are we going to fall back on the tired talking point of "parroting Russian propaganda"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Yeah, I gotta watch it or I'll end up deep even deeper in the weeds, and nobody wants that. But I really do believe that we are in the middle of a very critical phase in EU and Transatlantic politics that has the potential to be a watershed moment which analysts will eventually identify as a spot where things started to change into a new era of multi-polarity. Europe is flat footed here, but necessity is going to require it to catch up.

 

There is an intrinsic pulling of attention to the East - particularly with the Germans - and there is very much a conflict within the German elites themselves as to whether a third-way/triangulation position is viable. One of the things Wilkerson in the above video talks about is Colin Powell saying to him in 1989, "After Mitterrand and Kohl are gone, the future leaders of Europe will not have their identity re atlanticism firmly rooted in the actual experience of the War. That's when the transatlantic relationship will fray and then sever." I think we are simply dealing with this natural drift of a relationship that is exacerbated by lots and lots of mercantile interests in Russia and China. 

 

Again, I go back to the above video at the 10:10 mark where you actually have a DW anchor saying, "The trust that was broken by the US arising out of Iraq War II lingers in the minds of Europeans to this very day. We see it every day in our reporting. There is a suspicion that the US wants war and that its end-game is the establishment of perpetual war which demands the continuous production of weapons. Is there validity in this suspicion?" To which Wilkerson replies, "there sure is."

 

This is unbelievable content coming from German state media. It is far and away the most criticial that I have ever seen DW and I really don't see that it is being accurately covered in the US at the moment. 

So is the point now that it would be weirdly in America's interest for Russia to invade Ukraine, because it would demonstrate the Franco-German wishcasting to be just that?

Or will the Germans somehow put the blame on us for Russia once again undertaking an act of aggression against its neighbors?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an exchange sure to warm the cockles of @Anastasis heart, a reporter rakes Ned Price across the coals over statements about a potential inflammatory and fake video.

The “name the tactic” maneuver you’ve seen from the U.S. and Brits is a deliberate strategy.  Neither entity is going to present the hard intelligence.  The point is the opposite of whipping up war fears.  The point is to put down a marker for Putin and to (hopefully) make the hybrid tactics he chooses unfeasible.  They only work in the fog of misinformation and confusion and both counties have learned their lesson— by the time you soberly present all the evidence you have to an international audience, the damage is done, the fence-sitters have used the confusion as an excuse to sit things out, and the urgency is gone to act decisively. The Brits have been pushing to try this technique since Salisbury. 
 

It’s fine for the press to push on this issue, that’s their job.  But what is really happening is that the UK and U.S. are desperately trying to STOP Putin from deploying these tactics, they are not trying to predict that he will.  The risk, of course, is that if they are successful at heading Putin off at the pass, people will say that all the talk was just alarmist. But better to be thought alarmist than to be caught with your pants down again because you waited till the last minute to pull them up. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

In an exchange sure to warm the cockles of @Anastasis heart, a reporter rakes Ned Price across the coals over statements about a potential inflammatory and fake video.

LOL when he told him that they were operating in "Alex Jones territory".

Also LOL at Spox @ 4:45: "If you doubt the credibility of the US government....and want to find solace and information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do". 

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

 Good to see a reporter covering this report press them on past failures, evidence, and inconsistencies.

 

Here's another from the same reporter:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

The reporter is asking them to all but name their intelligence sources and when and where they gathered this intelligence.  I'm not saying the reporter is trying to help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations, but the answers to what he wants would help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations.

On the surface, it may seem reasonable - given our track record with our own beating of the war drums, but we aren't the ones rushing into war - Putin decided he wants to fuck around, and he presents a list of demands that are unreasonable.

And it's not unreasonable to push back on the reporter over this - the Russians were releasing ginned-up propaganda to justify the invasion/occupation of Crimea.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So is the point now that it would be weirdly in America's interest for Russia to invade Ukraine, because it would demonstrate the Franco-German wishcasting to be just that?

It is in NATO's interest.  If Russia invades Ukraine, it justifies NATO's existence, justifies the decisions of those in Eastern Europe who joined NATO, it makes Sweden and particularly Finland start to think about ramping up their "cooperation" with NATO (if not outright join), and it probably causes everybody in NATO to start ramping up their military spending/training.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on Putin's part. Which makes me wonder if invading Ukraine is worth it for Putin.  He questions NATO's relevance/existence over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, then does something that justifies NATO's existence, and pushes additional countries closer into NATO's orbit.  Doesn't seem very bright.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

The reporter is asking them to all but name their intelligence sources and when and where they gathered this intelligence.  I'm not saying the reporter is trying to help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations, but the answers to what he wants would help the Russians root out Western intelligence operations.

How about just releasing the confidence level assessments by each of the components of the IC?  Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Parliament said:

Paid in Euros.  Is there any meaning in that?

Saw in the NYT that Putin has spent the past decade or so piling up a massive currency reserve to help sanction-proof the Russian economy. Only about 1/6 of his reserve is US Dollars. The rest is mostly Renminbi, Euros, and gold.

Sorry no link but I can wave around the paper paper I read it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Doesn't Putin, among other things, want the US to formally drop any talks about Ukraine being a part of NATO?  Senator Hawley asked the obvious question as to why we don't do just that?  As things have escalated, does anyone thing Ukraine being a member is ever going to be a viable option?  Or are we going to fall back on the tired talking point of "parroting Russian propaganda"?

Seems like that would be capitulation.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Seems like that would be capitulation.   

Correct. We'd be giving up on the Western ideal of self-determination by a sovereign nation; Ukraine isn't allowed to decide for itself with whom it can associate.

"Sorry, Ukraine, your asshole big brother says you can't hang out at our lunch table no matter how much you'd like. We've got each others' backs over here, and we'd normally be cool with it but don't want to deal with the hassle of hurting your dickhead brother's feelings because you're too poor and unimportant. If his insecure ass says you can't, then we're just going to call him a cocksucker and let it be."

"Eat your spinach, get your shit together, and maybe you'll be strong enough someday. In the meantime, we're just going to do some flexing over here to make sure he only fucks with you and not us. By the way, here's a spoon or two you can use to defend yourself if he decides to wail on you for even thinking about leaving your abusive and dysfunctional family. We're rooting for you."

That's essentially what's going on.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

How about just releasing the confidence level assessments by each of the components of the IC?  Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

Do you want confidence level assessments that a plan exists and has been discussed? Or do you want the level of likelihood that it will happen, which are two different things in the IC. (And the latter changed after publicizing). When you say each of the components of the IC, you want Coast Guard and Department of Energy Intelligence to weigh in? 
 

FYSA, Russia has released manipulated video before (at a U.S. target). But yeah, this and Alex Jones’ theories about a school shooting in Connecticut are totally the same sort of thing. 
 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It is in NATO's interest.  If Russia invades Ukraine, it justifies NATO's existence, justifies the decisions of those in Eastern Europe who joined NATO, it makes Sweden and particularly Finland start to think about ramping up their "cooperation" with NATO (if not outright join), and it probably causes everybody in NATO to start ramping up their military spending/training.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on Putin's part. Which makes me wonder if invading Ukraine is worth it for Putin.  He questions NATO's relevance/existence over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, then does something that justifies NATO's existence, and pushes additional countries closer into NATO's orbit.  Doesn't seem very bright.

I don’t think any NATO nation wants an invasion to happen.  There’s no 3D chess game going on where we’re telling the Russians loudly to knock it the fuck off and are publicizing the ways they might try justify it, but secretly we want them to do it because Raytheon is a thing. Hell, to one constant from Biden had been “we will not send troops to Ukraine.”
 

And there hasn’t really been a lot of desire to bring Sweden and Finland into the fold. Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. doesn’t really need them anyway. Finland just signed a contract for F-35s.  Bringing in Sweden would HURT U.S. industry. Sweden has a robust defense sector, a consequence of its neutrality, and already competes on the EU market, with Saab Gripens the most visible, but also ground and maritime systems. (Finland has a smaller sector, but Sweden really is a player). Making them an Ally, and in the EU, would just make them more competitive. 

Everyone in NATO actually does want Russia to chill the fuck out and let Ukraine alone, where you have differences is how best to accomplish that (appeasement) or deterrence by boosting Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself and the threat of economic and other consequences. 
 

This go-round, the appeasement theory has wormed its way into a particular political segment in the United States (I chose the word worm carefully).  Because they are constitutionally incapable of making intellectually honest arguments, they won’t just say “appeasing Russia is good and cool.” Instead, they have falsely framed the argument by claiming the deterrence and consequences camp wants war. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One piece that’s been mostly ignored is the potential for a refugee crisis in Europe that makes Bosnia look like a day-camp outing.  Many of the countries likely to absorb them are in the East, are small, and don’t have the infrastructure in place to do it.

And Americans often don’t realize what a massive, long-term impact the Yugoslavia refugee wave made in Europe.  None of those nations wants a repeat, and certainly not at a larger scale. 
 

For that matter, brushing up on Bosnia will give an insight into U.S. thinking on European effectiveness and ability to resolve a crisis. Remember that this is a generation of foreign policy leaders that came up right as Bosnia happened or right after and they cut their teeth in an establishment where Holbrooke was the gold standard.  And the lesson they drew from Bosnia was that European will happily accept promises they know will be broken and proclaim peace in our time, even to their own detriment. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL when he told him that they were operating in "Alex Jones territory".

Also LOL at Spox @ 4:45: "If you doubt the credibility of the US government....and want to find solace and information that the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do". 

A reporter pressing the Spox to provide evidence for claims being made by the US government, giving specific examples of its track record when the war drums are beating, is met with a response amounting to go marry Putin if you love him so much. It's called traitorous critic fallacy, for the people keeping score on such things. 

 Good to see a reporter covering this report press them on past failures, evidence, and inconsistencies.

 

Here's another from the same reporter:

 

 

Let me make a helpful analogy:

Cops: “A known sex offender with a history of violence to minors and indecent exposure has been seen around this sports center.  Here’s his photo, call us if you see him and tell him to scram if he shows up to watch soccer practice. He’s not supposed to be here.”

Normal people: “Ok, thanks for the heads up.”

Brainworms: “Wait, didn’t you say that it was crazy last year when we thought Hilary Clinton had a kiddie sex dungeon in a pizza parlor? Now you’re asking me to BELIEVE in sex offenders? What is your confidence level, have you actually seen him unzipping his pants at the soccer field? Also, you arrested the wrong guy after the jewelry store robbery 12 years ago, so how can we ever believe you now?”

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand the comparison that some reporter makes between Alex Jones and the State dept.  I don’t recall Alex Jones breaking the story of an upcoming false flag operation with a school shooting. He finds real events and then stirs up the conspiracy crowd to sell products. Both use the same terms but in different context.

it’s possible that the govt is releasing questionable evidence or even conjecture with the false flag ops stories about Russia. But it’s in support to predict how Putin could attempt to sell an invasion to the world. He would look foolish even to his own citizens if he uses the same playbook that the US announces a week earlier.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Do you want confidence level assessments that a plan exists and has been discussed? Or do you want the level of likelihood that it will happen, which are two different things in the IC. (And the latter changed after publicizing). When you say each of the components of the IC, you want Coast Guard and Department of Energy Intelligence to weigh in? 
 

FYSA, Russia has released manipulated video before (at a U.S. target). But yeah, this and Alex Jones’ theories about a school shooting in Connecticut are totally the same sort of thing. 
 

IMO for all the attention this exchange received online from US gov't skeptics on both the right and the left, it is overblown and misses the point that what is being declassified here is not actionable intelligence. It's not something the US is going to use as a justification to send troops to Ukraine or escalate conflict with Russia. All that's happening is the US is preempting Putin by letting the world know that their intelligence suggests the Russians will use blatant propaganda tactics as a casus belli for invading Ukraine. The exchange went viral because of the aggressiveness of Matt Lee and the defensiveness of Ned Price, and both were equally wrong. Price kinda buried the lede in that briefing by not emphasizing the reasons he could not provide more answers and acknowledging skepticism but that it was being made public in the interest of keeping peace. "If you don't want to believe us, fine, but here's what we can tell you..." He crossed the line though by implying Lee was being too sympathetic to Russia by questioning him aggressively.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Let me make a helpful analogy:

Cops: “A known sex offender with a history of violence to minors and indecent exposure has been seen around this sports center.  Here’s his photo, call us if you see him and tell him to scram if he shows up to watch soccer practice. He’s not supposed to be here.”

Normal people: “Ok, thanks for the heads up.”

Brainworms: “Wait, didn’t you say that it was crazy last year when we thought Hilary Clinton had a kiddie sex dungeon in a pizza parlor? Now you’re asking me to BELIEVE in sex offenders? What is your confidence level, have you actually seen him unzipping his pants at the soccer field? Also, you arrested the wrong guy after the jewelry store robbery 12 years ago, so how can we ever believe you now?”

 

The analogy would be better and more accurate maybe if it made explicit that the cops were a gang of registered sex offenders.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think any NATO nation wants an invasion to happen.  There’s no 3D chess game going on where we’re telling the Russians loudly to knock it the fuck off and are publicizing the ways they might try justify it, but secretly we want them to do it because Raytheon is a thing. Hell, to one constant from Biden had been “we will not send troops to Ukraine.”

I didn't mean to imply NATO wanted it to happen, just saying that Putin is helping justify its existence and pushing some folks off of the fence.  He says it's not relevant, then invades a neighbor, making it relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One piece that’s been mostly ignored is the potential for a refugee crisis in Europe that makes Bosnia look like a day-camp outing.  Many of the countries likely to absorb them are in the East, are small, and don’t have the infrastructure in place to do it.

And Americans often don’t realize what a massive, long-term impact the Yugoslavia refugee wave made in Europe.  None of those nations wants a repeat, and certainly not at a larger scale. 
 

For that matter, brushing up on Bosnia will give an insight into U.S. thinking on European effectiveness and ability to resolve a crisis. Remember that this is a generation of foreign policy leaders that came up right as Bosnia happened or right after and they cut their teeth in an establishment where Holbrooke was the gold standard.  And the lesson they drew from Bosnia was that European will happily accept promises they know will be broken and proclaim peace in our time, even to their own detriment. 

Not everyone is overlooking it. Work with a group that handles refugee issues across the Med. They are pivoting resources to focus on Eastern Europe right now. Companies are starting to move people out. They have identified locations across the region to build quick camps. Have a call on Monday with their team lead. They are quite nervous and for some reason think the 10th is the day. 

I was in Bosnia (1995-1998) and yeah, it was bad. Worse crisis I saw concerning refugees was when Austria decided to send them all back in 1996 and there was no where to put them in the country. It was a major issue. Was back in Germany in 2008 and the hotel we were in was still staffed by Bosnians. Damn I would kick an aggy for some slivovic right now.

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

US intelligence says they believe Russian troops will move in to Ukraine in the next few days according to a news alert I got. 

If they want to avoid the mud in late March and get their Lebensraum they have to invade soon. 

Ukraine hasn't done shit to Russia, even after Russia peeled off a part of Ukraine a while back. So of course Russia is going to invade Ukraine.  

Because it's 2022 and Russia said they wouldn't invade.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-vows-for-de-escalation-and-dialogue-ahead-of-russian-trip-putin-ukraine/
 

It sure looks like Macron is getting out over his skis here.  It is almost always a mistake to promise breakthroughs with Putin ahead of time, he takes almost a perverse glee in humiliating leaders who come to court him. The skeptic in me says that he is going to accept almost anything Putin offers, knowing full well it won’t be accepted either across the EU or within NATO— and then it provides France and Germany an out to blame obstreperous Eastern Europe and America who won’t take a deal.

I think it’s a strategic error to use this to try and advance the common EU foreign policy cause and federalization. The states he’s likely to piss off the most also happen to be home to the most EU skeptic populations and leaders.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Russia declares independence on behalf of the Ukraine so it can protect the Ukraine or something like that
  • immamac changed the title to Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...