I will never ever forget watching Colin Powell deliver his Iraq speech. I was a child and very impressionable. I had the Desert Storm trading cards. All of them. I thought wow here is this credible general telling us how how bad these people are.
Years and years later I understood the depravity of his speech and the actions of the "the west" in starting that war. I think it is the only time in my life that I felt truly betrayed, and the realization happened while I was thinking about the topic in a grocery store aisle. My hands felt clammy.
Even more years later my job at a large software company had me extremely close to Powell. Like in the same room with him for long stretches of time and having 1-on-1 conversations. Every fibre in me wanted to say to him, calmly: You told a lie and it killed a lot of innocent people. Their lives matter too.
I didn't say it. I did my job and kept it at that. I don't know to this day if I had a moral obligation to say something, but ultimately I didn't because I knew he didn't care.
So yes, false flags. They only happen when something is inevitable. War is here.
Except…Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed.
George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Of course, Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.
>Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.
That is revisionist, and 100% incorrect. Bush did not have much credibility on the world stage or even at home. Powell did. When he co-signed what Bush and the other warmongers were saying, the public became willing to accept the necessity of the war.
I vividly remember the speech and the absolute difference it made in most people's minds about the pending invasion, not just globally but among the US general public as well. He was one of the few people with credibility on both sides of the aisle and on the world stage.
Yep. And in doing so, he ruined his rep and career because he didn't have the balls to go against "President" Cheney and the neocon hawks. Powell showed his true colors that he was an obeyer and purveyor of lies, neither a teller of truths nor a leader, and beat the drums to war at the UN based on "facts" like WMDs that didn't exist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it had everything to do with Cheney seizing a crisis to pocket money. W was a feckless, Idiocratic pot smoker riding daddy's coat tails.
Didn't Powell build his career in part on lying about the My Lai massacre because he was told to? I'm too young to know, but did he really have a reputation as someone who would refuse to lie if the White House told him to lie?
> Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed.
Powell knew it was going to fail, because he knew the contrary information available from UN inspectors that was going to be presented at the same meeting and which was already broadly available to decision-makers. The target of the UN speech wasn't the UN, it was domestic public opinion. And many who were not ideologically aligned with the President or previously committed to the war were, if not actually sold on the war, at least made afraid of Iraq’s potential by that speech (I had a lot of people say report their personal response along those lines to me at the time.)
It was an important, key part of the domestic propaganda campaign, despite the venue.
> George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did.
Which is why I wince at the fact that I ever supported this crime. It had nothing to do with the American interests, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed.
Now they’re determined to do it all over again, saying the same malarkey they said back then about protecting freedom or something.
Even though the WMD charge appears in hindsight to be fabricated, Sadam invaded Iran (1980), continued war with Iran (until 1988), used the Iraq military to level entire Kurdish villages, used mustard gas and other chemical agents against the Kurds, and invaded Kuwait (1990).
Absolutely. They lied. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, we'll probably know. But even at the most charitable, they circulated intelligence that they knew to be unreliable while concealing that unreliability.
An annoying thing about the word "lie" is that it is defined in some definitions as "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive". By this definition it is impossible to unintentionally lie. Another definition of lie is "an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer". You'll find both definitions at [1]. This makes this discussion about what Colin Powell said difficult, because as you point out, it's hard to know to what extent Powell actually knew for sure that he was making false statements about Iraq, given the assessment of foot soldiers at the CIA and the intent of Saddam to mislead the West for his own benefit.
If Team America World Police imperial global colonization authority with military bases all over the world like the friggin Roman Empire must right every regime, then it needs to invade Russia, North Korea, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Myanmar too.
Because evil exists is not a reason to not confront evil.
America lied (either intentionally or unintentionally) about the reasons for invading Iraq post-9/11.
But that isn't to say that removing Saddam Hussein from power wasn't a global or regional good.
It's trendy and low-hanging fruit to bash the American military for international involvements, or its many failures.
But it's equally important to note that the times America has turned inward and taken a more isolationist stance have resulted in the greatest turns away from international diplomacy and transgressions of international human rights.
The alternative to "Team America World Police imperial global colonization authority with military bases all over the world like the friggin Roman Empire" is not "life as we know it, minus America."
It's every country is one dictator or military coup away from becoming an undemocratic state. So I'd weigh how happy a citizen of Myanmar or Venezuela are with their life vs the ugliness of American military power.
The thing is propaganda is always necessary to initiate a war. Because people won't agree to mass killing unless they can believe they are fighting evil.
Honest question, fully admitting my ignorance here, not an intention-to-troll question:
How do we know for sure the real title shouldn't be: "US to stage false flag information campaign claiming 'russia is about to use crisis actors to stage false flag operation and start war in days', followed by false flag operations in Ukraine, in order to justify upcoming unilateral action against Russia?"
Like, I've seen soo many unprovoked articles in the last few days about how the US is "actively" gearing for war over something Russia "may" do, it's all a bit reminiscent of the "War on Iraq/Terror/WMD" stuff to me, and we all know how that ended up.
Furthermore, what I'm more worried when hearing press releases like that is that it's exactly the kind of talk that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, it's chicken and egg situation, isn't it? If got whiff that someone was planning an armed raid to my house on the pretext of finding guns, first thing I'd do would be to arm myself to fend off the raiders. If I heard that someone was accusing me of "planning to throw eggs at the school windows", my first thought would be that someone is planning to do this on my behalf already in order to frame me, and maybe I should go near the school with some eggs and wait for the offenders.
At what point do we take such speculative projections justifying real military actions at face value without questioning the intelligence and motives involved?
By the fact that Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees for giving up nuclear arsenal (3rd largest in the world) in the Budapest memorandum and still decided to annex Crimea in 2014.
Ukraine was already invaded and is at war with Russia over Donbas since 2014.
Russia does not deny their current military buildup on Ukraine border with Belarus and Russia.
Coincidentally, my high school history teacher accurately predicted in 1995 that Russia would eventually annex Crimea. He was a Swedish-American who did his Master's thesis on the 19th c. Crimean War. Putin is a dangerous guy because he has a chip on his shoulder that the West ruined the Soviet Union, is likely the richest man in the world, has nukes, is okay with assassinating dissidents, and wants to Make The Soviet Union Proud Again, especially if it keeps him dictator for life.
Those facts are not the evidence that Russia is preparing for a full-scale invasion or even for a local escalation in Donbas. The pretext for those events was quite different.
>Russia is obviously preparing for a full-scale invasion.
It was not obvious recently to German navy chief, it is not obvious to Ukrainian government and to plenty of other experts. All the evidence about "imminent attack" is fed to media by US government without sufficient proofs. Whatever are your sources, try to find more information.
German navy chief did not say anything with regard to factual state at Ukrainian borders.
Ukrainian government is not denying Russia buildup on their borders. They just say that Russia does not have enough troops for a full scale invasion. So, Russia is preparing, but is not yet ready for a full-scale invasion.
But USA is indeed going too far in rhetoric if Ukraine is toning them down.
Personally, I think there is 55% chance Russia is bluffing and intimidates Ukraine to dissuade them from thinking about taking back Donbas and Crimea. 45% chance that by end of March there will be land corridor from Russia to Crimea.
> German navy chief did not say anything with regard to factual state at Ukrainian borders.
Indeed he did not. However he said that such invasion to annex more of Ukrainian territory does not make sense. In order to run a very expensive and widely unpopular military operation you do need a good motive, and this means that whatever is the purpose of the military buildup, invasion is not the goal.
Russian military did not invade undisputed territories since War in Afghanistan and they now prefer hybrid wars or limited peacekeeping operations, rather than full scale invasions. They may provide some support to Donbas, but there is actually no point even investing in that. Minsk agreements are quite favorable to Russia, so it brings more value to persuade Germany and France that Ukraine needs more pressure to implement them. No, the real target of this buildup is NATO, playing Biden into signing new security treaties.
True, it does not make sense to invade Ukraine second time. And hopefully Russia will not invade.
We will see.
Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO due to disputed territories anyway.
As a Pole, after full blown invasion on Ukraine, I would support increase in military spending beyond current goal of 2.5%.
I also think that Sweden and Finland would join NATO relatively soon after invasion. After 2014 annexation of Crimea support for NATO grew there some 20-30%. Sweden is rattled enough to deploy symbolic military presence to Gotland. Joining NATO is part of political discussion in Finland, but they are on the edge.
We all will lose if any side of the conflict starts the war. For Poland this may mean, for example, a refugee crisis on the scale far beyond what we had after conflict in Syria. I do not think this will happen.
As for the expansion of NATO, any change in the military configuration of it is an unnecessary and significant escalation. Russia is not threatening neither Finland, nor Sweden, not even close, but we will get at least an arms race in Baltic region if they join.
Russian military strategy is that of active defense, they build up the power to protect their own territory. They do not have capabilities to attack and occupy Poland or Finland for a long time, mainly for logistical reasons (their army will run out of fuel quickly and won’t be able to resupply fast enough).
The worst part of the expansion is not that there’s a hypothetical risk of a conflict but that it strengthens Putin. He has built his rule on the idea of Fortress Russia surrounded by enemies. Any hostile moves by the West help him to build this case and to prove that pro-Western opposition is wrong. But if instead we could bind Russia in the series of multilateral deals with its neighbors, including defense cooperation, we could on one side defeat the Russian hawks and on the other side create too big pie to lose for Russian elites. America has Monroe doctrine: we should try to remove the need for Russia to have one. Situation in Ukraine made this really hard to achieve, but not impossible.
Russia is a terrorist state and terrorists don’t ever make sense - their intension is murder, fear and instability. Something that Russia has been master of for centuries.
The MSM has been parroting "imminent attack" memes such as the recall of regional embassy staff. Trotting out a USS Maine "dem Ruskies gonna make some fake videos" looks like more of the same yellow journalism that loves a good war.
The thing though is it does make Putin look weak if he has to move 100k troops to threaten Biden to the negotiation table.
PS: "Proof" is both singular and plural. "Proofs" isn't a word.
> All the evidence about "imminent attack" is fed to media by US government without sufficient proofs. Whatever are your sources, try to find more information.
I don't feel like one can participate in this discussion in good faith because any "evidence" of "imminent attack" can be brushed off... 100k troops and a ton of military gear on the border? Just chilling out and sightseeing, my friend, nothing to see here!
However, I do contest the claim that all "evidence" is fed by the US government. There are other sources if you care to dig in.
How about Ministry of Defence of Ukraine? They've been predicting action for January-February since months ago, and there's certainly evidence from Ukraine that Russia is up to something.
> On 21 November, the head of the HUR MOU, Kyrylo Budanov, reported that Russia had concentrated more than 92,000 troops and deployed several Iskander short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) systems near the Russo-Ukrainian border. Budanov accused Russia of conspiring protests against vaccination against COVID-19 in Kyiv and other protest rallies in Ukraine to destabilize the country in preparations for a large-scale military invasion. According to Budanov, active Russian military actions should be expected between late-January and early-February 2022.
> On 3 December, the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Oleksii Reznikov, spoke of the possibility of a "large-scale escalation" by Russia during the end of January 2022, during a session at the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's national parliament).
> Russia began a slow evacuation of its embassy staff at Kyiv beginning from January 2022. The motives of the evacuation remain unknown and were subjected to multiple speculations. By mid-January, an intelligence assessment produced by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence estimated that Russia were in its final stages of completing a military buildup at the Russo-Ukrainian border, amassing 127,000 troops at the region.
I'm not going to post the links because anyone who is not dishonest and not intellectually lazy can find them in two minutes of searching.
First, it is already beginning of February, so those predictions were false - nothing happened so far. Second, it would be more appropriate to quote more recent statement by the president of Ukraine, who denied that the attack is imminent and said that these statements only create unnecessary panic.
Whatever links you refused to post, they cannot possibly deny that this official position did exist just a week ago.
> First, it is already beginning of February, so those predictions were false - nothing happened so far.
Umm, this is exactly what I meant when I said it's impossible to discuss this in good faith. Any evidence can be immediately brushed off. "Ha, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine failed to predict the exact date when something would happen, therefore everything they said is false!" Completely disregarding everything that has been happening near Ukrainian border.
Sorry, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.
Well, my comment had two parts. Statement of Ministry of Defence that is disavowed by the President a month later does not look like based on hard evidence, it is merely a speculation. Ukraine has a role in this propaganda theater just like everybody else, and apparently they back off from a convenient alarmist position when the money start flowing away, not because of any change in the situation on the borders.
Given that it is the within the president's interest to avoid war, come to a diplomatic resolution, and prevent panic, I wouldn't take their denouncement as having any bearing on the evidence.
As someone born in Crimea and moved to Kyiv in 2014, I can tell you that a preventive strike is the last thing people in Ukraine really want now. And that is exactly what Russia wants to provoke or stage if that fails.
And I will have to decide (if l will have the time for that choice) if I am going to fight or run. The former is more "right" , but the latter might be more "practical".
Just appreciate the fact that most of HN audience do not have to make that kind of choice.
Short answer: Russia is quite different from Iraq because it has nukes. Iraqi WMD was all about chemical/biological and the capability of a nuclear program. Most sources today say that Iraq had halted and dismantled their CBW program in the 90s, but they did have those weapons prior to that.
USA will proxy war with Russia all over the world, but always falls short of direct conflict. It's too likely to turn nasty, and trigger MAD.
I think it's an important distinction that the US isn't gearing up for war with Russia (US-Russia), but rather readying themselves for a Ukraine-Russia escalation, and whatever ways in which that might spill over. Arguably they are already at war. The concern is not just another territory grab, but outright attack on Ukrainian sovereignty.
I don't know enough about world politics to have a say in to what degree the US is willing to come to Ukraine's defense. I do know that US doctrine since the Cold War is to not directly square off with the bear, not discounting giving the bear death stares from across the bar.
"but rather readying themselves for a Ukraine-Russia escalation" - but rather *pushing* for a Ukraine-Russia escalation.
You should read not only what the state department tries to claim, but also what the russian official figures are saying (google translate?). Objectively, you are advancing troops to Russian border, and not Russia advancing its troops to yours. And you have the history of invading other nations, not Russia (though you would claim Russia invaded Ukraine, remember that Ukraine was part of Russia long before the american state came into being, that no one ever considered Lugansk and Donetsk "ukrainian cities", and that the current ukranian neonazi government, supported by US in its role of a battering ram against Russia, tries to ban the Russian language in Ukraine, and glorifies WWII collaborationists).
> You can not draw parallels with Iraq. US is not willing to go to war over Ukraine, and Europe does not even want to sell weapons to Ukraine.
"We didn't plan to do this, we stated this so many times in all media, but what we said they are going to do is so bad, that we had to take actions... Totally not our fault, everyone can see that..."
Russia has deployed troops to the border. They have stocked up blood - short shelf life. The clock is ticking for them, they need to make a move soon. Given this, I consider it quite believable.
As with the Uighur issue in China it’s really simple: we assume the worst wherever independent media isn’t allowed to report.
It would be very easy for the Chinese authorities to allow critical media in every province just like it would be easy for Russia to have OSCE (or equivalent) inspection of “excercises” near the Ukrainian border.
Questioning sources and rumors is a good thing - but in cases when the sources are scarce because they are denied, one should assume the worst from the party refusing oversight. This is a plausible rumor.
USA will not take unilateral action against Russia. The fact the it is willing to try to uncover those actions by Russia is a signal that it is doing whatever possible to make clear to the public that Russia is invading Ukraine (not defending itself), but also making clear that it does not want to support Ukraine military.
Your message is based on a guess "USA government willing to uncover some actions". You can't make anything "clear" to the public without evidence. The only thing it makes clear is that you have interests there.
Russia already invaded Ukraine and conquered land. Now it's coming back for more using the same tactics they used for Crimea, but with a twist here and there and on larger scale.
No one wants to deal with Russia, have anything to do with Russia, or hear of it at all. No one. They're a nation of misery and nothingness. Would you leave your apartment, right now, go to the slums and start shit with the people over there? The thought that the US is looking for excuses to mess with Russia is insane.
And spending any time on Russia is a wasted time and resources which could have been spent towards more productive things. But if you let Russia run around and conquering this and that will force your hand eventually, at which point the time and resources you have to spent to deal with them would have grown massively.
Russia has natural resources, which is vital to the European economy. But you're right, the mere idea that the US government would have any interest in a conflict with them is so bizarre.
Another honest question that was prompted by the remembering WMD debacle: why is the American military going to fight in a border war between Russia and Ukraine?
Unless you are to pass moral judgment it doesn't matter. One of the parties staged a causus belli, a plausible reason to initiate war, this escalate things.
Because Russia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.
the US officials, who are quoting no sources other than unspecified "declassified information" for this false-flag stuff, also have a history of false flag operations and lying with the goal to start a war.
While I have strong skepticism of anything from the Government, I literally cannot find any reason that NATO or the USA would have any reason to to start a conflict with Russia inside Ukraine without provocation.
Having just finishing the war in the middle east, I'm sure the military complex would have a vested interest in joining / starting another conflict.
What about using a conflict to deflect attention away from a market breakdown?
What about using a conflict to drive a post-COVID recovery?
I'm not saying it definitely has to be one of these reasons, but I can think of many off the top of my head. Why are you so certain that USA or NATO nations would have no reason to start a conflict?
Nobody has put an armed conflict with Russia on the table, with the idea of sending US troops into Ukraine explicitly ruled out. The only responses being discussed are economic sanctions, which would slow a post-COVID recovery and would not distract from the domestic economy, and arming and training Ukrainian insurgents from bordering NATO countries. Your conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense in this context.
Neither Russia, nor NATO plan any real war here. Ukraine - maybe, because it seems pretty convenient to grab some land in Donbas, given that West is ready to activate sanctions against Russia even before the first shot. Russian buildup is just big enough to put pressure, aggressive NATO rhetoric is to demonstrate "non-negotiability" of any limitations to NATO expansion.
Ukraine is not member of NATO and not an ally of NATO states, just a rather unreliable partner in security cooperation, a corrupt democracy with stagnating reforms that does not want to commit to the diplomatic agreements negotiated with the help of the West. There is no reason for NATO to participate in any military conflict there.
The title here is technically correct in representing the content and the U.S. view. But you aren't the only getting weird vibes from it. In fact, I think I can honestly say that it is actually, literally the weirdest announcement I ever heard the U.S. government give.
> after eight years of facing down one another across about 200 meters of no-man’s land at the line of demarcation, the situation between Ukrainian armed forces and Donbas forces is very tense and volatile, so that it would be very easy for a provocation staged by British or American special forces, who are known to be in the area, to touch off a major conflagration.
The reporters are asking tough (but correct) questions. The government is also doing its diligence to protect sources and methods. The thing to remember, though, the point of releasing this information is probably to prevent Russia from using this method. It would be pretty ironic if the US government releases this information.. and then a few days later such a video is released. Time will tell.
Your Devs in Ukraine may be expecting the US to pull another Iraq situation where there is no American interest that rises to the level of sending in the US military.
The government doesn't really care that the press believe them, at this point.
If Russia proceeds with the plan they will provide all the corroborating evidence that is needed. If it doesn't, they got what they wanted.
Exactly. It's not like this is the state department saying "We have proof, and are therefore going to invade a sovereign nation." (As previously)
It's, we have proof of this thing, so we're announcing it because that's possibly a good in and of itself.
And the concrete actions we're taking are deploying some troops to NATO countries that want to host them and sending weapons to Ukraine. Neither of these seem like unreasonable actions, considering the numerical disparity between local Russian units and NATO ones.
Otoh, if people don't trust the government, why would they trust any evidence they can present? Chances are it would be the sort of evidence that's very hard to fact-check unless you happen to be running an intelligence service of your own.
So in the end they'd still be saying "believe us." And those who don't can call it unverifiable fake evidence.
"Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him. Oops, he's probably dead by now and a valuable source of intelligence is gone!"
> “believe us” with no supporting or corroborating evidence
There's reason to be skeptic but it's also extremely naive to think evidence of that nature can just be handed as proofs without blowing multiple sources
"No supporting evidence" oh I'm sure there's plenty of circumstantial evidence (like the satellite photos). Putin knows how to play the game of plausible deniability together with plausible aggressiveness.
"Oh but Iraq", we should definitely remember about it. It doesn't help that Saddam played himself. No kidding, he's like a person acting like he's shoplifting something but in the end isn't. Except you just don't get told off at the store door, you get invaded and overthrown.
> Georgia with invasions that launched during a prior olympic event
At least in case of Georgia, this is incorrect. The "invasion" was initiated by Georgian advance on Tskhinvali, and as a final result of this "invasion", no territorial changes have occurred, and the Russian troops haven't moved anywhere they haven't been for centuries already (including all the way up to 2008). If the goal was to invade Georgia, how come when it was all done nobody moved even a mile closer to Tbilisi, and even that clown fool Saakashvili was allowed to continue to embarrass himself in the same role?
What, exactly, was the goal, and the result of this "invasion"?
I am referring to the specific words in the transcript that they were using as they talked past each other, not trying to (re)define anything. The member of the press seemed to be under the impression that information should be associated with evidence, while the speaker did not.
There is no war to be stopped, only falling ratings of Biden and Johnson.
There does not have to be any specific evidence of the plot itself. It would be enough to show the necessary military buildup, but apparently the current Russian deployments near Ukraine are not enough and not in the configuration for attack.
US government has a track record of lying about international affairs. It’s time to stop listening them.
In fairness, if the actual data (classified) or information (classified) can be merged with context known only by the adversary, the disclosure of such data jeopardizes sources and methods (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-protecting...), giving the adversary an opportunity to either detect sources or alter their own methods to avoid further disclosure. That's why what you're seeing disclosed is essentially only the knowledge.
tl;dr: disclosing data could tell the adversary how we found out, leading to changes by the adversary or deaths of spies crucial to how we learned what we learned.
Doesn’t that sort of make it a noop though? I.e., its just a claim for which they can provide no evidence, and anyone can (and do) make those all the time and it’s just how politics works.
I can only imagine how hard it must be to protect sources, but the end state must eventually be to provide evidence or there is no way to tell the difference between an intelligence service and a method for manufacturing unsubstantiated claims at the convenience of whoever operates the agency. Maybe I’m being naive.
No. By revealing a likely course of action, it can prevent them from taking that course of action.
For example, if I plan to cheat at a card game by keeping extra cards in my shirt sleeve and another player at the table says: "He cheats. I hear he keeps cards in his sleeves." Then it will much harder, perhaps impossible for me to cheat that way because everyone will be watching my sleeves and my movements carefully.
Yup, and it's also the kind of thing they can really only do preemptively. If you tried to talk about the "crisis actors" scenario after the supposed attack has happened and video is released, you'd literally end up sounding like Alex Jones.
Alex Jones actually said they would likely use crisis actors before the shooting happened where he said it actually happened. That doesn’t make him correct or more credible. It just means he didn’t have any evidence either before or after.
At some point presumably you have to provide evidence. If you never can, that’s when you sound like Alex Jones.
If I don’t need evidence, though, I can just say you are a cheat (and worse, since I don’t need any evidence) anyway and then if you beat me whip up a mob to run you out of town. Politicians do this sort of thing to each other all the time.
I don’t mean noop in the sense that nothing can happen as a result, so it was probably a bad choice of a word, but that it just doesn’t provide any info. Maybe you’re telling the truth, maybe you’re lying for your own reasons, I have no way to know and so what can I do with the info?
I see the point you’re making too, though, and it makes sense.
In your analogy, you are forgetting that the US Intelligence community is the boy who cried wolf, so nobody will believe you even if he does have a card up his sleeve.
If you're going to declassify something, I would expect at least a document on official letter head, with any level of restricted clearance being crossed out and a declassified stamp over top. Then to give substance, they would need to add the title of this hn post "Russia to use crisis actors to stage a flag annd start was in days" as the content of that document.
So does the Associated Press it seems, as per the exchange during the press conference.
But yes, I would probably want some form of intelligence briefing being declassified in paper form before pointing the finger at a nuclear adversary. That ol' extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thing.
Or do you think that some spy in Russia, telephoned a guy in the pentagon, that telephoned a guy in the whitehouse, that setup a press conference and then telephoned a guy to brief him about something he should say, that may or may not help to provoke a war?
No, the reporter explicity said, "It's not the format, it's the content." They were looking for evidence, they didn't care whether it was written or not.
Why did you bring up HN post title? It's not in the briefing, seems to be OP's (quite exaggerated) summary. Price's words: "We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days."
Sounded like the guy had just heard so much stuff he considered pure bullshit, that he just ran out of suspension of disbelief.
As far as really important stuff (perhaps this isn't a good example?), they could actually just reveal everything, after all having an informed public seems pretty important in a democratic society. Does that ever happen? Get all the secret agents out and just blow the lid? It would have to be going-to-war level stuff though.
> MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence —
> QUESTION: Well —
> MR PRICE: — in which we have confidence, otherwise —
> QUESTION: The same confidence you had in WMD in Iraq? I mean, what —
> MR PRICE: Otherwise – otherwise – otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we are. But here’s the other point: Intelligence and evidence, these are two separate things. It is no —
What does he mean, “Intelligence and evidence are two separate things”? Is he saying that claims and evidence are different things?
To me it looks like it is the way to shift responsibility from intelligence community to a political figure. If intelligence community presents some evidence, they bear responsibility if that evidence is wrong. If they have only some intelligence, they are not 100% sure and Administration must take responsibility for any actions based on it. When Administration says they have confidence, they basically say, ok, we think that this data is correct and we take political responsibility for believing in it. Whether I’m right or not, I do not know for sure. But look at WMD „evidence“ presented by Colin Powell, and it starts looking the same.
Russia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.
"Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him."
Something a bit different from what Powell did at the UN in 2003? "Trust us" is the biggest bullshit the national security apparatus has pulled on the US population and frankly it's disgusting there hasn't been a single law to outlaw bullshit "declassified" press conferences without a single piece of evidence. 19 years later there's people defending vague ideas like "we can't show you or they'll know!!!!1". No, you have such evidence, you take your agent out and you publish it in order for the world to know and to drive Russia away from doing it. Spouting things with no evidence is the real false flag campaign.
>Unfortunately for them, their previous lies have caught up to them so ...
The sad thing is that they dont need anything. The USA is going to go pick up a fight with Russia, exercise their war muscle to both reactivate that side of the economy and the sense of nationalism that the government needs from its citizens and which has been slowly eroding in the last 20 years or so.
My hunch is Ukraine is preparing to launch an offensive against the rebels (low intensity fights have been since the separation) and Russia will step in whatsoever. I don't expect Russian to launch a full scale offensive because it just doesn't make sense.
The Gov credibility is so much damaged that I am not going to believe it. E.g., Afghanistan bomb strike which killed the NGO Guy and the kids.
If some other nation had done a similar air strike which killed innocent civilians, there would be sanctions one after another. E.g., Sanctions were imposed on Belarus just for landing the plane with a fake hijacking plot. The same was done by American gov on President of Bolivia Eva Morales due to the possibility that Snowden was on the flight.
Why motive would the US government have to lie about this, though? We’ve already said we aren’t going to go to war over Ukraine no matter what Russia does. So why look for a pretext to go to war with Russia when we just said we don’t want to go to war with Russia? Especially when their actions against Ukraine are reason enough. We don’t need any excuse to do exactly what we’re doing, which is providing materiel and troops along the NATO border - that’s just a treaty obligation.
So why would the US lie about this? I’m very open to ideas - I’m not one to trust the government - but I just don’t see any motive here. It seems like an honest warning that Russia is going to lie and try to make it seem like Ukraine attacked them.
The US would lie about this to have an excuse to slap more sanctions or to send arms defensively to their adversaries' border. Which they are doing already. It's not that hard to figure out since it's been done to death (literally) many times since the end of WWII.
But the US doesn’t need any excuse for sanctions or a defensive buildup. Russia’s troop placement is enough for the troop movements and an invasion would justify sanctions on its own. So why lie?
And I agree these sort of lies have been done before, and they’re still being done. They’re used to justify a lot of US military actions which are unjustifiable (e.g. drone strikes). But the motive here is just not that clear to me because we already have enough of an excuse to do whatever we want to Russia over Ukraine.
Some people say Russia out of nowhere invaded Ukraine for no reason.
Other people know there was a color revolution in Kiev that ousted a democratically elected president who was, just as Ukraine historically has been, aligned to Russia and put in place someone else who was completely against an alignment with Russia and went straight to alignment to the west. Then Russia invaded. To forget all this you need some serious cognitive dissonance since it's essentially the Cuba crisis of the 60s except with inverted roles.
So no, the US has nothing to justify what it has been doing since the crisis began in 2013. That is why it needs to keep making up excuses, they're meant for US people and its allies' people to believe and support action against Russia, by driving the narrative that poor ukrainians are being oppressed. No, the ones oppressed are the ones who voted Yanukovych and had their democratically elected representative forcefully removed from power.
>If some other nation had done a similar air strike which killed innocent civilians, there would be sanctions one after another.
You mean just like Russia recently did in Africa?
>On 16 and 17 January 2022 at least 65 civilians were killed by Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group supported by armed forces in Aïgbado and Yanga villages near Bria in the Central African Republic during operation against rebels from Coalition of Patriots for Change.
These "mercenaries" have just been relocated by Russia to the Ukrainian border.
Has the world already forgot the daily Russian bombings in Syria a few years ago that killed thousands of civilians?
Russia and Russian-armed Syrian groups were responsible for the vast majority of casualties in Syria.
This is actually something that does deserve a proper reaction with UN investigation and broad sanctions again everyone in the war supply chain there.
But Africa is hard to sell to the American and British voters compared to poor Ukraine.
It's not whataboutism to point to an example of another nation doing something in response to a claim that begins “if another nation had done something like this...”
These people are playing dangerous games with millions of lives potentially at stake and economies at the precipice of collapse.
At last since the Iraq war the intelligence services really lost any independent credibility they had during the Cold War.
It’s the boy who cried wolf once too many times. Maybe they’re right, but just as likely they are making it up for realpolitik or worse domestic politics.
Why should people give benefit of the doubt to the country with 150k troops, full equipment, tanks, & blood plasma, and surrounding Ukraine with them? They could easily attack Ukraine within hours
We should give them the benefit of doubt about this particular accusation because the people accusing them
1. Have not presented evidence, merely asserted something and demand to be trusted
2. Have a long history of lying, and clearly feel they are entitled to lie to you when they feel it's useful.
There are plenty of times you should not give the Russian government the benefit of doubt, but it's the other side which is making a positive assertion here.
The parent poster was talking about US intelligence. We should not believe them since they fabricated the whole WMD nonsense as a reason to start war in Iraq. Nobody is giving the benefit of the doubt to Russia here, as they haven't said anything.
Given the situation, I dont see much reason for a pretext on Russias part. They will either pull the trigger on this thing or not. At this point vlad would probably feel weak if he backed down, so things are kind of stuck.
Vlad could also just do nothing until the midterm elections in the US while opposition politicians hammer the White House over the fact that there are American soldiers sitting in Ukraine and Russia hasn’t even done anything.
Are the US intelligence "demanding to be blindly trusted" ?
Or - hypothetically - if the US intelligence is only 80% reliable - isn't it still worth signalling to their Russian counterparts that "we see you, don't try it" ? That might be the real intended audience.
> Are the US intelligence "demanding to be blindly trusted" ?
They totally are. They were downright shocked that AP's Matt Lee didn't just go along with it.
The question is not whether Russia would ever do such a thing. The question is if the USG actually has evidence that they plan to do such a thing.
One particularly ugly thing Russia did in Syria, was send out warnings that "the rebels are planning a false flag attack" to give Syria cover for actual attacks they were making.
That illustrates that Russia is untrustworthy, sure, but we already knew that. However, it also illustrates how worthless unsubstantiated claims of forthcoming false flag attacks are.
> Or - hypothetically - if the US intelligence is only 80% reliable - isn't it still worth signalling to their Russian counterparts that "we see you, don't try it" ? That might be the real intended audience.
They've got phones and meetings for that. it's 2023, everyone is fully aware what, where and how things are happening. What they do is bargain on who gets what, all things considered.
Yeah, I take your point. The idea behind putting the possibility of Russian fake news into the public view is more likely ... well, putting it into the _public_ view. Because such fake news is an attempt to change public opinion.
Keep in mind that Russia has gathered hundreds of thousands of troops & their equipment on the border of Ukraine, for zero good reason other than to bully, intimidate, or invade. This is entirely a crisis of Russia's making.
This is a rather shallow and naive way of looking at things.
Put bluntly, Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia and the West, keeping their nukes and armed forces at arm's length. Ukraine didn't like this role, it wanted out, but it underestimated how much this would tip the balance. They moved too fast and against a now-pissed former and powerful ally. Hence the result.
That is, there is a pretty good reason for Russia to do all this even if their methods are painfully crude.
Ukraine is an independent country, and that gives it the right to manage its own foreign policy. Russia is upset that Ukraine, like almost every other post-Soviet country, would rather be in the US/EU sphere of influence than the Russian sphere of influence, but that is Russia's problem, not Ukraine's problem.
To add to this, this is entirely Russia’s fault. Before the invasion of crimea eastern, former soviet countries, were more pro-russia and against the “west”. Obviously nobody likes to interact with someone annexing parts of countries, and displacing many civilians, or even worse. So to nobodies surprise the tides turned and the majority in Ukraine and other countries are now pro joining the Nato.
Ukraine does not manage its membership in NATO or in EU. It is the sovereign right of NATO members to decide on expansion policy and they have no intention currently to offer membership to Ukraine. For some weird reason they are at the same time not ready to commit to that, just because this will look like it's happening due to pressure from Russia. Childish.
Commit to what? Never letting Ukraine in? That's an unreasonable ask. Meanwhile, they don't have to say anything about letting Ukraine in now: they're demonstrably not.
Why on Earth is that unreasonable? Any political arrangement that will serve the needs of the existing members should stay on the table. If from defense perspective non-expansion agreement complemented by arms control treaties is better, then we should take it. Ukraine may still end in a better position in such case.
You said it yourself: arrangements shouldn't be taken off the table. They're not going to be in NATO any time soon. A commitment never to allow them in, though, makes no sense other than to placate Russia.
What rubbish! Let's start with the Ukranians get to decide what goes on in Ukraine. Full stop, Russia is not invited to the decision. That is a nation of independent human beings, not a "buffer zone".
The analogy to an abuser claiming ownership of a battered spouse is becoming incredibly apt.
This is Putin fighting against the inevitable, like a spoiled child. Ukraine wants to join Europe in some fashion. They want to be able to travel where they wish, to make good salaries from US or European companies, to be free to choose. Many in their 30s are all good English speakers. They would like to join the rest of the world. They are no longer really in the Russian 'sphere of influence', whatever that means anymore. And they are some of the smartest and best educated people in the world, so why shouldn't they? Putin is fighting a losing, regressive fight against the future. If he chooses to invade, there will be hell to pay, and the rest of the world should be willing to help a free people defend themselves.
They do not decide on NATO or EU membership. They can only decide if the country should apply, but NATO is not obliged to serve them Article 5. Exactly because of that there can be actually a multilateral security agreement between NATO, Ukraine and Russia that could include non-expansion of NATO in exchange for some other, rock solid security guarantees. Same with EU membership: it can be a multilateral trade deal instead between EU, EAEU and Ukraine.
I do not think personal attacks have any place on this forum. In any case, your conclusion is rather primitive and lacks any depth. I do not support the idea of expansion of NATO, military help to Ukraine or the idea of imminent war that may soon happen. This however does not mean I’m taking side of aggressor here. It’s just that those ideas are counterproductive and dangerous. They do not help to bring peace. Instead they will cement the Putin‘s rule, enable Ukrainian far right groups to advance further their agenda and make peaceful solution more distant than ever. Americans should really get out of European politics and rely more on judgment of their partners. Their muscle power is no longer desirable way to handle security topics here.
The issue here is that Russia does not have that option at hand. If they institute a 100% economic blockade they lose out right because no one else will care.
That is what I mean. Russia does not have the power to threaten one and therefore has to wield more crude tools to try get the point across. There's no possibility of Ukraine turning into North Korea through sanctions, rather for Russia.
I really don’t think it matters at this point. The west isn’t going to do anything to Russia directly (e.g. through nukes or armed forces). Whether there’s 1m between the borders or 1000km.
This is a rather shallow and naive way of looking at things.
Put bluntly, nukes don't matter, and armed forces are only used to suppress societal discontent. Ukraine sees the regressive authoritarianism Putin creates and didn't like how the pie is cut. Putin is throwing a temper tantrum because he's a dinosaur. He can only look back, and on his deathbed he will look back on a Russia that could and should have been much more.
There is a reason for his party to do all this, but its fear of facing their own failure birthed in greed and paranoia, and not any military strategy in the face of satellites, drones, and hyper-sonic nukes.
So if your wife (a buffer between you and loneliness) wants to leave you, you get to beat her up into submission, because she's not free-minded human being that is entitled to her own choices? What a fine Russian president you'll make.
Do we have any proof of this promise ? Because Gorbachev himself said
it was not made [1]
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Every country can make their own decisions regarding their international treaties and alliances. The NATO expansion is also not something that’s happening against the will of the people in eastern countries. After the Crimea annexation, most countries in that sphere of influence turned anti-russia and more pro-nato. The majority of Ukrainians is currently also pro joining the NATO.
> Since June 2014, polls showed that about 50% of those asked supported Ukrainian NATO membership. Some 69% of Ukrainians want to join NATO, according to a June 2017 poll by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, compared to 28% support in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power
To get a sense of the propaganda aspect of this "promised" business you need to ask yourself the question "Why did not the Soviets/Russians accept verbal private promises as the basis for arms control?"
Agreements regarding matters of such strategic gravity are always written down and signed by the involved parties. The expansion of NATO clearly was and remains as strategic a concern (to all parties) whether then or now. Note, for example, Russia's current demand for a "written legally binding response".
So we are either to assume Soviet team (Gorbachev et al.) were either incompetent or assets of the West, or, USSR capitulated and was not in a position to make legal binding demands regarding NATO and had to be satisfied with warm non-binding backroom reassurances.
I think it is the latter, and now, post Soviet Russia (caught between a pincer of Europe and China) believes it has a stronger hand and wants to re-negotiate.
Were actual binding commitments made, Russia would have inherited them as successor in interest. But no one pushing this Russian propaganda line can point to anything that even remotely resembles even a personal (much less binding international) commitment, just a few instances around 1990-1991 where Western leaders indicated that they (depending on which statement or communication it is) either were not immediately prepared for or did not immediately envision further eastward deployment of troops of expansion of NATO.
It is irrelevant and a red-herring. Great power agreements are written legal documents. There was no agreement and thus the question of continuity of the non-agreement is meaningless.
It’s clear to me that the example of Iraq and WMDs was a bare-faced lie by the US government, concocted to start a war. But does that mean I automatically believe the opposite of anything the US government says from that point onwards? We have to consider more than just the source of the claim.
For Iraq, the US war hawks made it clear they had an objective of going to war in the Middle East. Their plans were obvious.
This seems like a completely different setup. We’re supposed to disbelieve this statement because it’s part of the US government’s evil plan to… prevent a war happening?
And I say this as someone who thinks Russia does actually have legitimate beef with the prospect of NATO expansion, despite their thuggish approach to negotiation.
> But does that mean I automatically believe the opposite of anything the US government says from that point onwards?
It means that you can't trust governments when it comes to major political conflicts. Lies for the "greater good" have always been a standard thing in such situations
There is no reason to trust the government, any government, which is why the Bill of Rights limits the US government’s power over citizens and the press.
What is going on in the comments here? Are there really people on HN that think Russia spent all that time, money, and effort to amass their troops on the border just as a ruse, and the intelligence services are just making it all up?
HN and tech people are extremely anti-American military. Just remember all the comments on articles regarding Microsoft/Google/Amazon working with the Pentagon. HN would probably vote for the dismantling of US Army if polled.
As an ex Googler this has nothing to do with America, much more with anti-war. If Google helps the Chinese or the Sirian military, you get the same reaction. When I was working there, I was friends with people from 15 different countries, but for others it can be much more.
Whenever we're writing code that helps a military, we may be writing it to kill the family of a colleague, which is clearly immoral.
I don't even know what to say. Do you understand the cost and logistical challenges of such a troop movement? Is it lost on you that Russia already invaded Ukraine once in the last 10 years? The false flag attack has historical basis and is so obviously plausible that I'm convinced half of the commenters here are either astroturfing or are just trying to score cheap "don't trust the govt, man!" points.
This is a serious issue, millions of lives hang in the balance here, and all the commenters here want to play armchair general. I'm in disbelief.
> Do you understand the cost and logistical challenges of such a troop movement?
It's a fraction of Russian forces already close by, then there's another 2 million reserves just waiting around at home. Supply/movement costs are barely a rounding error and it's bizarre to hear otherwise as though they care about taxpayer waste? Spending the most on nothing is basically a political sport there.
Putin is in an excellent position to weather any western sanctions from stirring the pot, and we all know it. Germany, the de facto leader of the EU just threw away it's nuclear powerplants becoming ever more reliant on Russia for its vital energy needs for the next few decades. They know how strong a position they have and are going to cause trouble over the Ukraine NATO thing without fear, that's pretty much the extent of it.
It's the usual 5 eyes nonsense where our media hypes it up for months and then nothing. You should try talking to some South Koreans or Taiwanese about this phenomenon, it will be their turn again next year. It's far too late in winter to be invading anyone.
1. US/nato didnt send military so close to Russian border at this scale before
If a country that I had a cold war with amassed military near my border I'd be rightfully paranoid (I am not from us or russia btw)
2. Deescalation needs at least one side not amassing military there else its a never ending spiral into war.. and due to #1 us/nato should take that step, not act like russia, rather be better
3. Like others said, the same sources that lied about Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. yeah, it's come to it that many comments that said that are (or looks like) from us citizens
>Are there really people on HN that think Russia spent all that time, money, and effort to amass their troops on the border just as a ruse,
Not as a ruse, but as a show of force to bolster his negotiation position. Putin would have to be insane to actually invade. It would be the end of his regime.
US intelligence agencies have a history of making things up, yes.
As for "what is going on in the comments", I have to ask the same question. The credulity, paranoia, and lack of perspective is somewhat astonishing to me. There are people who literally think that eastern Ukraine is absolutely vital to American interests.
We are talking about Russian territory here. On another hand, some NATO countries are actively massing their troops inside of some country which never invited them... It's completely different, of course!
Ok this sort of makes sense but 2 things spring to mind here -
#1) Any actual things/events will be automtically doubted even if true. Given the restriction on live casting to YT this leaves citizen journalism effectively muzzled.
#2) Pot meet kettle. Google Yellow Uranium Hoax and the "Sexed Up Dossier".
Personal Opinion Only - I find it sad seeing the Internet being weaponised
Russia already claimed they downed a Ukrainian drone which then very clearly in the photos wasn’t Ukrainian. Not sure who that propaganda was for, but likely a domestic audience as it was quickly taken apart anywhere there is critical media (as they must have understood it would be).
If you believe that Russian intentions for Ukraine will be published weeks in advance in by an American media outlet, I have a bridge over the Dnieper river to sell you.
>To be clear, the production of this propaganda video is one of a number of options that the Russian Government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially justify military aggression against Ukraine. We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days.
Well, that is just disgusting. Shame on Putin and Russia. They should have some class and find a teenage girl to accuse the Ukrainians of killing newborn babies. Or failing that, at least make something up about WMDs...
There will absolutely not be a war. Both sides got what they wanted (oil prices over a hundred US a barrel, and a significant bump to defense stocks), meaning the milindustrial complex can continue for a while longer and Russia gets out of its economic slump.
"US State Department spokesperson Ned Price has rejected Moscow’s assertion that Washington is escalating tensions by sending additional troops to Europe, accusing Russia of attempting to turn “reality upside down”.
“These are not permanent moves; they are precisely in response to the current security environment in light of this increasingly threatening behaviour by the Russian Federation,” Price told reporters."
Oh, so there are troops on both sides. Who could've thought
I get that folks are jaded over the Iraq WMD things. I get it. The US itself is not above disinformation at times.
But to imply that Russia isn't willing, able, or actively running disinformation ops, and in fact it's the US State Dept that's lying and running the false flag...like, what!?
Russia:
- we have no intentions of putting missiles in Cuba
- we're not rolling tanks into Afghanistan
- dunno how that polonium got into that spy's tea
- idk, that spy just happened to die from a nerve toxin that's only produced in one russian chemical weapons facility.
I'm hardly read up on world politics but anyone paying attention to basic history knows that this is what Russia does. They constantly gaslight the rest of the world with a thin veil of plausible deniability, while leaving obvious "calling cards" as a message of deterrence to anyone that can read between the lines.
Ironically the Cuban missile crisis was retaliation caused by the buildup of arms surrounding Russia… the same thing they’re complaining about now.
They roll tanks, USA flies drones. How’s that war with Yemen you’re not in going?
They kill spies, people get suicided in prison. Epstein not killing himself isn’t such a funny meme now.
Anyone paying attention knows that you only get one side of the argument when you live inside that countries sphere of influence.
USA is literally the only one that wants war here. Russia doesn’t, Ukraine doesn’t, Europe doesn’t, Germany doesn’t.
So ask yourself, why would America want to make a country look like an unstable and aggressive force when countries have started to trust them enough to replace their nuclear power generation with cheap Russian gas instead of American imported LNG???
> But to imply that Russia isn't willing, able, or actively running disinformation ops
Literally no one (of significance) is saying this. This is a straw man.
> and in fact it's the US State Dept that's lying and running the false flag
Not sure where you are reading this, but the U.S actually has a long history of conspiring and attempting false flag operations and unlike most others, hundreds of thousands people end up displaced and dead after U.S involvement.
I think the US intelligence is correct. Russia is actively crating false flag causes, getting ready to war. They have even blood supplies, and riot control for occupation arriving.
At the same time I think the decision is to attack is not made and probability of large scale attack is maybe 10-30%. President of Ukraine and their defense minister think similarly.
If Russia botches the attack, or resistance and partisan warfare is worse than anticipated, and Russian military is humiliated. The easiest way for authoritarian leader to be toppled is if they screw up war and humiliated military leadership is not sitting idly taking blame.
Just a reminder that Russia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.
Just a reminder that America has a recent history of using intelligence to start wars in other countries. The 2002 invasion of Iraq due to the presence of WMD is universally consider lies and propagandar by journalists and historians who are not on The White House payroll.
But what motive do we have to do that here? In Iraq it was clear - we had oil interests. But why would we lie about this? We don’t need any excuse to go into Ukraine, and we just said we won’t do it.
If anyone has a reason the government would want to lie about this I’m very open to it - but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t see the motive.
This is a conspiracy theory which does not make any sense. The second Chechen war was completely justified by the Chechen attack on Dagestan. There are numerour terrorist acts done by Chechen rebels which are not questioned at all; but it's postulated that precisely these terrorist acts were fake (out of so many real ones!).
I'm definitely no expert. But it feels to me that Russia really does not want to invade Ukraine. This feels like a bluff. It's been going on too long and has been too telegraphed.
I worry that the West "calling this bluff" will force Putin into doing something he doesn't really want to do, though. Maybe there will be a "minor incursion" then some kind of "agreement" so everyone can save face?
> But it feels to me that Russia really does not want to invade Ukraine.
Then they should probably stop invading and occupying Ukraine.
Or do you mean that they have succeeded in convincing you that they don't really want to invade more of Ukraine?
Maybe, I mean, they might well not want to do that right now if they can instead use the threat of doing so as leverage to get a firm commitment from NATO not to protect Ukraine in the future and to withdraw from other places in Eastern Europe, effectively committing to recognize Russia’s Greater East Europe Co-Prosperity Sphere. That would be the bigger win than anything they could get by an immediate further invasion.
Of course they don’t. They want to reach their strategic goals with minimum cost of course. But right now it looks like they have actually lost on the strategic side with NATO expansion accelerated by at least a decade in Sweden/Finland and post Cold War readiness being brought back to Europe at a pace that you wouldn’t have believed a couple of years ago.
So the threat hasn’t exactly paid off yet, and what’s worse, they might have painted themselves into a corner where open conflict is the least bad option, at least if Putin wants to save his strong man face (not that the Russian public wants the war despite endless propaganda in every news outlet).
Perhaps Putin can accept the de facto re-incorporation of Belarus into Russia that took place last week in plain sight as a win and be happy with that.
Years and years later I understood the depravity of his speech and the actions of the "the west" in starting that war. I think it is the only time in my life that I felt truly betrayed, and the realization happened while I was thinking about the topic in a grocery store aisle. My hands felt clammy.
Even more years later my job at a large software company had me extremely close to Powell. Like in the same room with him for long stretches of time and having 1-on-1 conversations. Every fibre in me wanted to say to him, calmly: You told a lie and it killed a lot of innocent people. Their lives matter too.
I didn't say it. I did my job and kept it at that. I don't know to this day if I had a moral obligation to say something, but ultimately I didn't because I knew he didn't care.
So yes, false flags. They only happen when something is inevitable. War is here.