Civil war in Ukraine

[Jimih]

Clashes will only take place when Kyiv's Azov battalion along with United States PMC's conduct a False Flag ops either in DPR or LPR.

US & NATO will than have solid reasons to put economic sanctions on Russia, probably cutting them from SWIFT banking system. They want this to happen. Ukraine being used as pawn.

That's why so much hysteria about the War Dates from the West, want to justify the incoming False Flag.

 

[another_armchair]

Clashes will only take place when Kyiv's Azov battalion along with United States PMC's conduct a False Flag ops either in DPR or LPR.

US & NATO will than have solid reasons to put economic sanctions on Russia, probably cutting them from SWIFT banking system. They want this to happen. Ukraine being used as pawn.

That's why so much hysteria about the War Dates, want to justify the incoming False Flag.

I hope the West is not that suicidal.

 

[saneel2014]

Indians? who are these people?

Well my hunch is that these are the aspiring you know whose trying to get some free training?

I had a indian nepali friend who wanted to join foreign legions because they see more action than india....there are people who exist solely for war and what comes with it..such types of people join the foreign legions

 

[asianobserve]

Rumors or ?

Ukraine's ambassador in London, Vadym Prystaiko, just told the BBC his country might be willing to drop its ambition to join Nato to avert war, saying Ukraine could be 'flexible'.

"Asked if Kiev was considering shelving its plans to pursue Nato membership, despite it being written into the Ukrainian constitution, he replied: 'We might - especially being threatened like that, blackmailed by that, and pushed to it.'"

It's called Finlandization. Essentially, it'll become a neutral country and not a member of NATO. That's the better outcome for Ukraine. But Ukraine cannot be prevented from joining the EU since it needs the economic dynamism of the EU.

 

[asianobserve]

I hope the West is not that suicidal.

It's Putin who is suicidal. He's creating a terrible problem where there is none.

 

[another_armchair]

It's Putin who is suicidal. He's creating a terrible problem where there is none.

Quite true... like starting the civil war in Syria... resurrecting ISIS... trying to create an alt supply route for gas into Europe and eventually bankrupt Gazprom.

Yeah... the West is least interested in Russian fossil fuel reserves... good part of which is unexplored.

 

[asianobserve]

Yup.

Putin’s primary worry has long been that missile launchers now deployed in Romania and soon, if not already, in Poland (ostensibly for anti-missile defense) can accommodate Tomahawk cruise missiles with ranges that put Russia’s strategic forces in jeopardy. Putin has voiced that concern loudly for years.

For example, after the US-orchestrated coup in Kiev in Feb. 2014, Putin explained publicly that US/NATO plans to deploy ABM systems around Russia’s western periphery were an "even more important factor" in Moscow’s decision to annex Crimea than the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

At a press conference, Putin began with a reminder that Russia had been "conned" when the West promised in 1990 not to move NATO one inch eastward. Putin then pointed out that, after the US withdrew from the AMB Treaty:

"Now anti-ballistic missiles are deployed in Romania and are being set up in Poland. … These are MK-41 launchers that can launch Tomahawks. In other words, they are no longer just counter-missiles, and these assault weapons can cover thousands of kilometers of our territory. Isn’t that a threat to us?"

What about similar deployment to Ukraine? The U.S. has already agreed not to do that. Western media largely missed this, but Russia’s readout of the Dec. 30 telephone conversation between Biden and Putin included this:

“… Joseph Biden emphasized that Russia and the US shared a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and the whole world and that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine.” [Emphasis added.]

The US "non-paper" that was revealed by El Pais, was labeled "confidential", and small wonder. Clearly, the Biden administration did not want its concession on inspection, for example, to leak. It will come as a shock for those predicting (some of them actually hoping for) the worst. Washington’s non-paper expresses willingness to discuss "a transparency mechanism to confirm the absences of Tomahawk cruise missiles at … sites in Romania and Poland." In other words, verification; which has worked well in the past – with the INF Treaty, for example, which saw the entire class of intermediate- and short-range missiles destroyed.

Obviously there's some questions that need answering here, apart from the fact that the claim that the US won't put strategic missiles in Ukraine is bullcrap:

1) The US sold NATO on those systems because the were ostensibly a defense against Iran. Is the US now admitting that they aren't against Iran, but against Russia?

2) If they are against Iran - which no one believes - why not remove them if Russia wants then gone? Everyone knows Iran is not going to attack Europe.

3) If they are against Russia, why would the US remove the nuclear warhead option and leave the Tomahawks reduced to conventional warheads? Doesn't that remove the whole point of their being there? Does Washington really believe that 24 interceptors can defeat a Russian missile attack on Europe? A hypersonic missile attack? If so, where is the evidence? If they can't, then clearly they were put there as a first-strike strategic weapon - which is precisely what Russia believes.

4) This leads to the obvious conclusion that the US has no interest whatsoever in removing the Aegis Ashore systems. Instead, it's going to try to drag out talks in an attempt to convince Russia to allow the US to see its missile technology inside Russia. This is what "verification" means.

That's a very long line to connect from the US promising Russia that it will not station offensive weapons in Ukraine, to the US admitting (according to your summation, confidentially) to Russia that the ABM systems in Romania and Poland are secretly designed to house Tomahawk Cruise missiles. That's a very crude and not well-informed conclusion.

For one, there's no indication that the US ever admitted to having intention of placing Tomahawks on its ABM systems in Romania and Poland; and,

Two, if the US does have plans of putting Tomahawks in any European country aimed at Russia then it does not need expensive fixed ABM sites in Romania and Poland to do that, which are not hardened like nuclear missile silos in mainland US and Russia thus very vulnerable to first strikes. The US recently tested a Tomahawk cruise missile from a mobile platform.

Also, the US Army is developing the Typhoon mobile lunch system for SM-6 and Tomahawk.

And more importantly, the US is already fielding its Dark Eagle mobile Hypersonic weapon:

So Russia's claims are ridiculous to say the least. What Putin is not saying as the reason for all these brouhaha is that he wants to create a Soviet-lite empire and Ukraine is the most important part of it. But Ukraine's Westward drift has wiped his delusion.

 

[asianobserve]

Quite true... like starting the civil war in Syria... resurrecting ISIS... trying to create an alt supply route for gas into Europe and eventually bankrupt Gazprom.

Yeah... the West is least interested in Russian fossil fuel reserves... good part of which is unexplored.

You watch too much RT.

 

[Kumaoni]

It's Putin who is suicidal. He's creating a terrible problem where there is none.

Okay

 

[asianobserve]

OkayView attachment 137795

So you're saying that those Russian military build ups in the past did not happen?

And how about now, do you think Putin's massive military build up surrounding Ukraine is just another routine Russian military exercise?

 

[Kumaoni]

So you're saying that those Russian military build ups in the past did not happen?

And how about now, do you think Putin's massive military build up surrounding Ukraine is just another Russian military exercise?

No. I’m saying your 2cent uneducated media sources can’t take Russia’s name out their mouth.

The Russians deployed troops on THEIR SIDE OF THE BORDER; and they haven’t shown aggressive signs. This is reported by many Ukrainian sources themsleves, including the President.

The United States as 20 so military bases in the Nexican border; including a nuclear capable airbase.

 

[asianobserve]

No. I’m saying your 2cent uneducated media sources can’t take Russia’s name out their mouth.

The Russians deployed troops on THEIR SIDE OF THE BORDER; and they haven’t shown aggressive signs. This is reported by many Ukrainian sources themsleves, including the President.

The United States as 20 so military bases in the Nexican border; including a nuclear capable airbase.

These so called 2 cents media are just reporting what's happening. Unless you want to claim that the Sept. 1, 2016, Sept. 13, 2017, etc. Russian military build ups near Ukraine did not happen?

And why do you think does international media report every time Russia conducts unusually large military build ups near Ukraine? --- Heard about the annexation of Crimea and the military destabilization of Eastern Ukraine?

 

[another_armchair]

You watch too much RT.

I neither watch nor read RT.

 

[asianobserve]

Russia Has Been Prepping Its Population for a ‘False Flag’ Operation For Months

Just whom would a Russian “false flag” operation seek to convince? Western audiences have been warned for weeks that Moscow may try to stage a purported provocation for invading Ukraine—but foreigners may not be Vladimir Putin’s target.

Russians are living in a completely different information environment than their Western counterparts, especially when it comes to Ukraine. Over the last several months, the country’s largely state-controlled media has been rife with statements from Russian proxy forces.

Just Whom Would a Russian 'False Flag' Operation Seek to Convince?

Russians themselves are likely the main target of the recent crescendo of disinformation, mostly from Moscow-backed separatists in Ukraine.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Optimistic Nihilist]

That's a very long line to connect from the US promising Russia that it will not station offensive weapons in Ukraine, to the US admitting (according to your summation, confidentially) to Russia that the ABM systems in Romania and Poland are secretly designed to house Tomahawk Cruise missiles. That's a very crude and not well-informed conclusion.

For one, there's no indication that the US ever admitted to having intention of placing Tomahawks on its ABM systems in Romania and Poland; and,

Two, if the US does have plans of putting Tomahawks in any European country aimed at Russia then it does not need expensive fixed ABM sites in Romania and Poland to do that, which are not hardened like nuclear missile silos in mainland US and Russia thus very vulnerable to first strikes. The US recently tested a Tomahawk cruise missile from a mobile platform.

View attachment 137790

Also, the US Army is developing the Typhoon mobile lunch system for SM-6 and Tomahawk.

View attachment 137791

And more importantly, the US is already fielding its Dark Eagle mobile Hypersonic weapon:

View attachment 137792

So Russia's claims are ridiculous to say the least. What Putin is not saying as the reason for all these brouhaha is that he wants to create a Soviet-lite empire and Ukraine is the most important part of it. But Ukraine's Westward drift has wiped his delusion.

That's a very clever way to deflect the points raised; unfortunately you're not dealing with typical NPCglowni**ers here who'll swallow up your Amerimutt talking points.

The first point is completely nonsensical; expecting the US to admit that it is violating international treaties is like expecting it to stop its murderous actions worldwide: it's never gonna happen.

Secondly, the principal complaints against Aegis Ashore are that the launchers can house Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of interceptor missiles. Despite assurances from the United States that the system can only launch SM-3 missiles, it is unclear how exactly these restrictions may be implemented since they have identical dimensions and launchers, and software restrictions are purely nominal and easily overridden.

Despite the negligible military expediency of stationing cruise missiles in land-based launchers, which are extremely vulnerable, non-mobile, and small in number (Romania has 24 universal launchers, a single destroyer carries 90 of them), it affords Russia the formal right to accuse the United States of breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Besides, placing the Pentagon’s stationary military facilities in Romania and Poland deals another blow to the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.

Considering this is not the first, but rather the umpteenth time the US can lie, it makes a lot of sense for Russia to raise this point.

 

[Optimistic Nihilist]

So you're saying that those Russian military build ups in the past did not happen?

And how about now, do you think Putin's massive military build up surrounding Ukraine is just another routine Russian military exercise?

America has close to that 100,000 number of troops, maybe even more along the US-Mexico border. Also around 20 permanent military bases within 100 miles or so of the Mexican border, including a nuclear-capable air base at Yuma. It probably always has more troops deployed near the Mexican border than the Russians likely have deployed at the Ukrainian border right now.

Why does The Lying Western Press and CIAglowni**ers not complain about that?

 

[Kumaoni]

These so called 2 cents media are just reporting what's happening. Unless you want to claim that the Sept. 1, 2016, Sept. 13, 2017, etc. Russian military build ups near Ukraine did not happen?

And why do you think does international media report every time Russia conducts unusually large military build ups near Ukraine? --- Heard about the annexation of Crimea and the military destabilization of Eastern Ukraine?

Why is it their business on what Russia does?

And seriously? You are criticizing Russia for annexing Crimea (when a majority wanted to join) and Eastern Ukraine which is pro Russian by nature, yet you don’t know that Half of the United States was conquered from Mexico in the Mexican American War?

 

[asianobserve]

That's a very clever way to deflect the points raised; unfortunately you're not dealing with typical NPCglowni**ers here who'll swallow up your Amerimutt talking points.

The first point is completely nonsensical; expecting the US to admit that it is violating international treaties is like expecting it to stop its murderous actions worldwide: it's never gonna happen.

Secondly, the principal complaints against Aegis Ashore are that the launchers can house Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of interceptor missiles. Despite assurances from the United States that the system can only launch SM-3 missiles, it is unclear how exactly these restrictions may be implemented since they have identical dimensions and launchers, and software restrictions are purely nominal and easily overridden.

Despite the negligible military expediency of stationing cruise missiles in land-based launchers, which are extremely vulnerable, non-mobile, and small in number (Romania has 24 universal launchers, a single destroyer carries 90 of them), it affords Russia the formal right to accuse the United States of breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Besides, placing the Pentagon’s stationary military facilities in Romania and Poland deals another blow to the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.

Considering this is not the first, but rather the umpteenth time the US can lie, it makes a lot of sense for Russia to raise this point.

So since the US will not admit to what you want it to admit you will just put words into US' mouth?

As I said, these fixed ABM sites in Poland and Romania pose no serious threat to Russia. You said it yourself that it has very limited missile capacity to be of consequence against Russia. But Putin has to spun a tale to aggressively pursue the pieces of his Soviet-lite that do not want to be be a member of it...

 

[asianobserve]

America has close to that 100,000 number of troops, maybe even more along the US-Mexico border. Also around 20 permanent military bases within 100 miles or so of the Mexican border, including a nuclear-capable air base at Yuma. It probably always has more troops deployed near the Mexican border than the Russians likely have deployed at the Ukrainian border right now.

Why does The Lying Western Press and CIAglowni**ers not complain about that?

FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

 

[Jimih]

America has close to that 100,000 number of troops, maybe even more along the US-Mexico border. Also around 20 permanent military bases within 100 miles or so of the Mexican border, including a nuclear-capable air base at Yuma. It probably always has more troops deployed near the Mexican border than the Russians likely have deployed at the Ukrainian border right now.

Why does The Lying Western Press and CIAglowni**ers not complain about that?

American Democrats are not concerned about their own borders with Mexico, which they are deliberately allowing illegal Mexicans to enter US (this will be their future votebank)

And Americans are concerned about other Nation's borders, and that's an Irony.