ADVERTISEMENT

Four reasons why Russian invasion of Ukraine is imminent. WITHIN THE PAST WEEK . . . .

YouSayPotato

True Freshman
Jun 4, 2021
871
679
93
1. Russia moves fighter jets to Belarus

63WHWLXVTZPCZI5H4QMT35TAIQ.jpg


Source

2. Russian troops now positioned at Belarus-Ukraine border and at Moldova-Ukraine border in addition to Russia-Ukraine border.

5UP4DZMUDJD4ZE4HCEZIFTTJ2E.jpg


Source

3. Six Russian landing ships steaming to the Black Sea for marine landing in Ukraine.

53121361-10417951-image-a-167_1642606759334.jpg


Source

4. Russia evacuates embassy in Ukraine capital of Kyiv.

Russia Thins Out Its Embassy in Ukraine, a Possible Clue to Putin’s Next Move​

The slow evacuation may be part propaganda, part preparation for a conflict or part feint, Ukrainian and U.S. officials say. It could be all three.


The Russian Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, in April.

The Russian Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, in April.Credit...Andrei Ratmirov/TASS via Getty Images

By Michael Schwirtz and David E. Sanger, NY Times Jan. 17, 2022

KYIV, Ukraine — The week before intensive diplomatic meetings began over the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, American and Ukrainian officials watched from afar as Russia began emptying out its embassy in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.

On Jan. 5, 18 people — mostly the children and wives of Russian diplomats — boarded buses and embarked on a 15-hour drive home to Moscow, according to a senior Ukrainian security official. About 30 more followed in the next few days, from Kyiv and a consulate in Lviv, in western Ukraine. Diplomats at two other Russian consulates have been told to prepare to leave Ukraine, the security official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
This is hilarious. NATO is sending ships, aircraft and troops to where the Russians threatening Ukraine are not located! Look on the map below and find Ukraine, then find the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania. The US should follow up and send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

"Denmark will sail a frigate to the Baltic Sea and send four F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania. Spain is also sending ships to join NATO naval forces in the region and is considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria, the statement read. France said it is willing to send troops to Romania, and the Netherlands also said it will send two F-35 fighter aircraft to Bulgaria in April."

Troops to Nowhere

default.jpg
 
Last edited:
Trump would go meet with Putin and talk some sense into him. Putin respected/feared Trump.

Putin neither respects nor fears Biden. Putin knows Brandon is an empty suit.

I highly doubt Brandon has proposed meeting with Putin to discuss.
This guy is Jimmy Carter with dementia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purduepat1969
Trump would go meet with Putin and talk some sense into him. Putin respected/feared Trump.

Putin neither respects nor fears Biden. Putin knows Brandon is an empty suit.

I highly doubt Brandon has proposed meeting with Putin to discuss.
Putin does not fear DT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
This is hilarious. NATO is sending ships, aircraft and troops to where the Russians threatening Ukraine are not located! Look on the map below and find Ukraine, then find the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania. The US should follow up and send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

"Denmark will sail a frigate to the Baltic Sea and send four F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania. Spain is also sending ships to join NATO naval forces in the region and is considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria, the statement read. France said it is willing to send troops to Romania, and the Netherlands also said it will send two F-35 fighter aircraft to Bulgaria in April."

Troops to Nowhere

default.jpg
Only hilarious to that well-known group that is easy to amuse.

The moves are symbolic. Ukraine is not in NATO.

My worry is that Biden will do something really dumb, as is his custom.
 

Putin Is Waging War on Europe​

His officials and media supporters have started talking openly about ‘military confrontation.’​

By Bernard-Henri Lévy Wall Street Journal
Jan. 18, 2022 6:22 pm ET

im-469056

Russian guards on the street in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Jan. 12​

The West is obsessed by the pandemic. International politics has all but disappeared from the public conversation, so that few people seem concerned by the imperial ambitions of the new Russia.

I refer to the ferocious repression in Almaty, Kazakhstan, and the images of Russian tanks there, eerily similar to those in Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968. And to the 150,000 Russian troops massed near the border with Ukraine, holding the Europeans of Kyiv’s Freedom Square at gunpoint. And to the draft “treaty” delivered to the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on Dec. 17, a document that Françoise Thom, in an article in Desk Russie, reveals to be, in Moscow’s eyes, a veritable ultimatum.

Ms. Thom quotes Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying that if the U.S. and NATO fail to meet Moscow’s demands, they will face “a military-technical alternative” and will see “the continent” become “the theater of a military confrontation.” Gen. Andrey Kartapolov, a former vice minister of defense, raises the possibility of “a pre-emptive strike.” Of Russia’s firing of Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles on Dec. 24, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he hoped they would make the Dec. 17 proposal “more convincing."

Never before have Russian officials expressed themselves publicly this way. Vladimir Mojegov, whom an article in French on the Russian website Sputnik calls a “political analyst and Americanist,” jokes that the same Zircon missiles are “more reliable allies” for Russia, that they can “crack a destroyer like a nut,” and that they are capable of “shooting at unwieldy aircraft carriers like a pistol at a can.” The pro-Putin Svobodnaya Pressa asserted that if NATO is enlarged, Russia “will bury Europe and two-thirds of the United States in half an hour.”

This rising extremism only half-surprises me. I have feared its coming since August 2013, when President Obama, in Syria, gave the signal to retreat and ushered in a world without America. I took its full measure in Amsterdam in 2019 during a public debate with Alexander Dugin, one of Mr. Putin’s ideologues and a proponent of neo-Eurasianism.

But it would be good if this extremism hit home with high-ranking European officials who continue to see Russia as a peaceful neighbor surrounded by ill-behaved Westerners, or Mr. Putin as a leader trying simply to defend his right to his personal space, his lebensraum, his cordon sanitaire.

It would be very good if the sleepwalkers in France, America and the rest of the world would wake and hear Russian military expert Konstantin Sivkov musing about Russia’s “nuclear potential” to “physically eliminate” Europe and explaining that, at the end of this hypothetical nuclear war, “there will be . . . almost no survivors.”
There remain, among supposedly enlightened Western thinkers, many fools who would accept the annexation of Crimea to avoid the annexation of Ukraine, and then the invasion of Ukraine to prevent an invasion of the Balkans, followed by the subjugation of the Balkans to ward off the Finlandization of the Baltic states, the neutralization of Poland, and even the placing under Russian tutelage of the great states of Western Europe. This is all reminiscent of the appeasement that produced the 1938 Munich Pact.

Mr. Putin has declared war on Europe, and the West. It is a cold war, a war deferred, with an Iron Curtain falling (for the moment) along the Ukrainian frontline. But it is a war all the same.

Its instigator now bears in history’s eyes the immense responsibility of having broken the taboo against war, which has preserved the safety of the European Continent twice devastated by world war. During the 80-odd days leading up to the presidential election in France, there should be no issue more pressing than this programmatic kidnapping, as Milan Kundera might put it, by one of our worst enemies.
 
Doubt he has respect for either. Respect is earned.
Again, you can buy into the liby sentiment that Putin and Trump were friends, which is fine. But Putin wasn't going to pull this $hit while Trump was POTUS.
Keep in mind, Biden literally asked the Taliban to stand down during the 'evacuation'. You think that was 'Presidential"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider
Again, you can buy into the liby sentiment that Putin and Trump were friends, which is fine. But Putin wasn't going to pull this $hit while Trump was POTUS.
Keep in mind, Biden literally asked the Taliban to stand down during the 'evacuation'. You think that was 'Presidential"?

This is about the threat of NATO expansion. This is Putin's way of pushing back. He didn't have to do anything when trump was president.........trump was doing it for him. The public sparing over funding, his reluctance to state his support of article 5, his order to withdraw troops, saying NATO is obsolete and would consider withdrawing from the alliance........he was fracturing the alliance........exactly what Putin wanted. There would be no NATO expansion under Trump. Putin knew that. He was a perfect president for Putin with regards to NATO.

Considering all this along with his comments about Russia not being involved in US elections and his willingness to accept Russia's help, and his failure to inform American security and intelligence agencies........I don't know if they are friends but Putin certainly didn't fear him. Trump was helping him.......and of course they had a "great relationship".

NATO was created to stop Russian aggression in Europe. Putin is now using the threat of war to stop any NATO expansion. How could the need for NATO be anymore clear? Putin showing his true colors.
 
This is about the threat of NATO expansion. '...when trump was president.........trump was doing it for him. . . no NATO expansion under Trump. Putin knew that. He was a perfect president for Putin with regards to NATO. . . . Trump was helping him. . . ."
"This is about the threat of NATO expansion. "Really?

Put your unending Trump hate aside and honestly assess the possibility that NATO will invade Russia. Is Estonia going to invade Russia? Are Germany and Italy and France and Great Britain going to invade Russia? Those scenarios are too foolish to discuss.
 
NATO expansion doesn't mean an invasion. It means adding new members to it's political and military alliance.
We are talking within the context of Russia invading Ukraine. If the invasion occurs, will NATO counter-attack? Will NATO forces go into combat either in Ukraine or by attacking Russia directly?

Those are rhetorical questions. We know for a certainty that neither NATO nor the US will send in combat troops. This talk about ‘sanctions’ virtually guarantees there will be no military action.
 
Here's what I think should happen:

Donald Trump should make a phone call to Putin, better yet, fly out there to meet with him to talk some sense into him. Things in the region would calm down and there'd be no invasion.

That would be absolutely classic.
 
We are talking within the context of Russia invading Ukraine. If the invasion occurs, will NATO counter-attack? Will NATO forces go into combat either in Ukraine or by attacking Russia directly?

Those are rhetorical questions. We know for a certainty that neither NATO nor the US will send in combat troops. This talk about ‘sanctions’ virtually guarantees there will be no military action.
No and no. NATO is a defense alliance. They aren't going to invade anyone. It isn't like the Tripartite alliance in WW2.

If Russia attacks a member of NATO, we may have a different situation........because that's what NATO was designed for. Ukraine is not a member.......and that's what this whole thing is about. Ukraine wants to be, Putin doesn't want it to join. That's why this is happening.

You're moving the goalposts and avoiding the answers to your questions........just putting out different stupid ones.
 
You're moving the goalposts and avoiding the answers to your questions........just putting out different stupid ones.
Bob, here are your words posted above:

"This is about the threat of NATO expansion. '...when trump was president.........trump was doing it for him. . . no NATO expansion under Trump. Putin knew that. He was a perfect president for Putin with regards to NATO. . . . Trump was helping him. . . ."

Your comments about Trump helping Putin are are absurd. Trump's complaints about NATO concerned the fact that most members were not paying the pledged 2% of GDP for defense. Trump was trying to get the member nations to increase their defense spending, and he was successful. Here, read what actually happened instead of making up nonsense:

NBC

Reuters

The Hill

NY Times
 
The NY Times article that I linked above is for subscribers only. Here, from the most rabid liberal newspaper in the nation, is what it says:

Trump Warns NATO Allies to Spend More on Defense, or Else​


President Trump met with Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands on Monday in the Oval Office. In letters sent last month, Mr. Trump demanded that NATO allies spend more on their own defense.

President Trump met with Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands on Monday in the Oval Office. In letters sent last month, Mr. Trump demanded that NATO allies spend more on their own defense.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis
  • July 2, 2018
WASHINGTON — President Trump has written sharply worded letters to the leaders of several NATO allies — including Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada — taking them to task for spending too little on their own defense and warning that the United States is losing patience with what he said was their failure to meet security obligations shared by the alliance.

The letters, sent in June, are the latest sign of acrimony between Mr. Trump and American allies as he heads to a NATO summit meeting next week in Brussels that will be a closely watched test of the president’s commitment to the alliance. Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned its value and has claimed that its members are taking advantage of the United States.

Mr. Trump’s criticism raised the prospect of another confrontation involving the president and American allies after a blowup by Mr. Trump at the Group of 7 gathering last month in Quebec, and increased concerns that far from projecting solidarity in the face of threats from Russia, the meeting will highlight divisions within the alliance. Such a result could play into the hands of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is to meet with Mr. Trump in Helsinki, Finland, after the NATO meeting, and whose primary goal is sowing divisions within the alliance.

In his letters, the president hinted that after more than a year of public and private complaints that allies have not done enough to share the burden of collective defense, he may be considering a response, including adjusting the United States’ military presence around the world.

“As we discussed during your visit in April, there is growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised,” Mr. Trump wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in a particularly pointed letter, according to someone who saw it and shared excerpts with The New York Times. “The United States continues to devote more resources to the defense of Europe when the Continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us. Growing frustration,” Mr. Trump wrote, “is not confined to our executive branch. The United States Congress is concerned, as well.”

The president’s complaint is that many NATO allies are not living up to the commitment they made at their Wales summit meeting in 2014 to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on national defense. American presidents have long complained about the lack of burden-sharing by NATO member countries, but Mr. Trump has taken that criticism much further, claiming that some of the United States’ closest allies are essentially deadbeats who have failed to pay debts to the organization, a fundamental misunderstanding of how it functions.

The Trump administration has already reportedly been analyzing a large-scale withdrawal of American forces from Germany, after Mr. Trump expressed surprise that 35,000 active-duty troops are stationed there and complained that NATO countries were not contributing enough to the alliance.

In the letter, Mr. Trump told Ms. Merkel that Germany also deserves blame for the failure of other NATO countries to spend enough: “Continued German underspending on defense undermines the security of the alliance and provides validation for other allies that also do not plan to meet their military spending commitments, because others see you as a role model.”

In language that is echoed in his letters to the leaders of other countries — including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway and Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium — Mr. Trump said he understands the “domestic political pressure” brought to bear by opponents of boosting military expenditures, noting that he has expended “considerable political capital to increase our own military spending."

"It will, however, become increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security burden while American soldiers continue to sacrifice their lives overseas or come home gravely wounded,” Mr. Trump wrote to Ms. Merkel.

merlin_140411955_50508d76-9953-48be-a1d6-cad5edc5a9c2-articleLarge.jpg

Image

“As we discussed during your visit in April, there is growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised,” Mr. Trump wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Mr. Michel reacted tartly last week to the letter, telling reporters at a European Union summit meeting in Brussels that he was “not very impressed” by it, according to a report by Deutsche Welle.

Mr. Trump has long complained about the alliance and routinely grouses that the United States is treated shabbily by multilateral organizations of which it is a member, be it the World Trade Organization or the North Atlantic alliance. But in Europe, the letters to NATO allies have been greeted with some degree of alarm because of their suggestion that Mr. Trump is prepared to impose consequences on the allies — as he has done in an escalating tariff fight with European trading partners — if they do not do what he is asking.

“Trump still seems to think that NATO is like a club that you owe dues to, or some sort of protection racket where the U.S. is doing all the work protecting all these deadbeat Europeans while they’re sitting around on vacation, and now he is suggesting there are consequences,” said Derek Chollet, a former Defense Department official who is the executive vice president for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“Europeans have been watching Donald Trump begin to implement his rhetoric on trade in ways that are very combative,” he said, “and they’re starting to contemplate whether he would do this regarding security issues, as well.”

Mr. Trump’s letter to Mr. Trudeau was reported last month by iPolitics in Canada, and the existence of others was reported last week by Foreign Policy. It was not clear precisely how many Mr. Trump wrote, and the White House would not comment on presidential correspondence. But two diplomatic sources said they believed at least a dozen were sent, including to Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the matter, said that Mr. Trump is committed to the NATO alliance and expects allies to shoulder “their fair share of our common defense burden, and to do more in areas that most affect them.”

John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, said Sunday that it was NATO members who refused to spend more on defense — not the president — who were responsible for undercutting the alliance. “The president wants a strong NATO,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “If you think Russia’s a threat, ask yourself this question: Why is Germany spending less than 1.2 percent of its G.N.P.? When people talk about undermining the NATO alliance, you should look at those who are carrying out steps that make NATO less effective militarily.”

But for diplomats hoping fervently to avoid another high-profile summit meeting collapse with Mr. Trump as the instigator, the letters were concerning. “Europeans, like many folks in our Defense Department, think that there are many good things that could come out of this summit if only they can keep it from going off the rails,” Mr. Chollet said. “They are hoping to survive without irreparable damage, and so the fact that you have all these storm clouds surrounding NATO and Trump is really worrisome.”

Mr. Trump’s disparagement of Europe and the alliance has become almost routine, leaving some veteran diplomats aghast. Last week, Jim Melville, the United States ambassador to Estonia, told friends and colleagues that he would resign at the end of this month after more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, in part because of the president’s language.

“For the President to say the E.U. was ‘set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank,’ or that ‘NATO is as bad as NAFTA’ is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it’s time to go,” Mr. Melville wrote in a Facebook post. He was referring to remarks about Europe that the president made during a rally last week in Fargo, N.D., and comments about NATO that he is reported to have made privately during the Group of 7 gathering.

Still, the president is not alone in demanding more robust military spending by NATO allies.
Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, wrote to Gavin Williamson, the British defense minister, last month saying he was “concerned” that the United Kingdom’s military strength was “at risk of erosion” if it did not increase spending, and warned that France could eclipse Britain as the United States’ “partner of choice” if it did not invest more. A United States official confirmed the contents of Mr. Mattis’s letter, first reported by The Sun.
 
Last edited:
Trump would go meet with Putin and talk some sense into him. Putin respected/feared Trump.

Putin neither respects nor fears Biden. Putin knows Brandon is an empty suit.

I highly doubt Brandon has proposed meeting with Putin to discuss.

Most or Europe seems to be hoping he doesn't. The French prime minister has told Biden to let him take the lead. Dude is such an incompetent buffoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouSayPotato
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT