Haven't we just got through repeating in painstaking detail how Neo-Nazis are not justification for invasion? — Isaac

Unless perhaps

(headline) "Nazi Ukraine marching on Moscow" — jorndoe

Currently, we have Putin's Russia invading/bombing Ukraine.

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html — neomac

Good grief man. It's 2022. Not 22.

A friend who worked with them extensively told me it could be really quickly, two weeks of drills or even a bit less if they are working with experienced teams. That jives with DoD messaging of "about a week." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the detailed and informative answer.

lol, reminds me of the Reddit "covens" organizing to support the ANA. I have to assume at least half the posts were made in jest though, at least I hope so.

Yes, it's not the data I'm referring to, it's the interpretation. The data needs careful and expert interpretation. One can't simply look at some intelligence reports, even of the highest confidence, and say "well, I reckon that means..."

That's literally what OSINT is meant to do, to put analysis in clear language for the public.

Intelligence reports aren't a foreign language. When I started working on them I used mostly the same skills I had learned in my education.

That's literally what OSINT is meant to do, to put analysis in clear language for the public. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Firstly, if your (or anyone else's conclusions are interpretations from OSINT, then you should cite the source rather than trying to pass it off as your own analysis, but regardless

a) the data from OSINT doesn't even begin to cover the sorts of speculation passed off as fact I was referring to in the comment you initially replied to. The actual data is sparse and usually of low confidence, and the reports make that quite clear.

b) much of OSINT isn't itself interpretation but reporting of opinion (and clearly labelled as such). Even the CIA admitted to lying about some of its intelligence reports for propaganda

c) most sources of OSINT (such as osint.org) also act as news aggregators and as such have their own editorial policy, just like any newspaper.

d) the intelligence community, foreign policy strategists, military and political analysts are not all exactly of one mind and speak with a united voice about the issues we're talking about here. There's considerable variation which encompasses pretty much all the views expressed here (with the exception of some of the very fringe positions we've heard from).

So again, the conclusions presented as fact to which I was referring are not magically supported as such simply by hand-waiving generally in the direction of OSINT, it would be the equivalent of me writing an entire paper without any citations and then at the end saying "there are such things as journals, you know!"

It's quite obviously not about denazification but even here we're not agreeing on what the real reason is. In my view, the US/NATO are as much to blame for this war as Russia.

Point being, Russia might soon be at a significant firepower disadvantage, so it's unclear why they are continuing with the ineffective attacks and sending conscripts to their deaths. They seem to be making it more likely they lose land they've held since 2014. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just to emphasize how much aid Ukraine is actually getting is the example that the US has sent about 1/3 of it's Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine. Usually countries have like under 50 launchers in their inventory or at most a hundred launchers. Ukraine has now over 2000 launchers. For the US to replace this expenditure of ATGMs, which won't cost actually so much for the US, it still will take a year to produce replacement equipment for US Army. There simply aren't any additional factories to make them.

With the Russians the issue can be that they finally are going to follow their own doctrine and manuals and concentrate their forces, but the fact is they cannot suddenly replace the used and lost material. And they don't have the reserves. And the fact is that they don't have reserves. To form up new ones or rearm reinforce older ones with reservists would take actually months.

Yet defense is easier than attack. And do notice the ease that Russian forces could withdrew from the Kyiv front. No large Russian formations were pocketed and destroyed altogether, hence the Ukrainian counterattacks were mainly local. What we haven't seen is Ukraine making a counterattack with several brigade size units. Something that isn't easy when you don't enjoy air superiority. Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now.

I think the days of the armored division are done though. After this, many nations are probably going to switch to something like the Armored Brigade Combat Team, realizing that tanks need to move with interceptor assets, recon assets, and indirect fire assistance. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With great fanfare Russia few years ago re-created the formation of the 1st Tank Army, which now has seen actually operation with other Combined Arms Armies of the Russia Army. The idea was that the brigade hasn't gotten enough of firepower. Hence larger formations. It's interesting to see just what lessons Russia does learn from this. Especially now when it is focusing on the Donbas and understands that Ukrainians will fight, because the earlier multi-pronged attack and the attempt to seize Kyiv was clearly made thinking that the Ukrainians wouldn't defend and fight.

I thinking in area defense will be proved right again. The assumption that you can have a quick capture of the enemy country and hence have a splendid short war has now been shown just how perilous it can be.

I could be wrong but if Putin plans to attack any country that helps Ukraine, then it is a given that we have to help Ukraine any way we can. — dclements

Which luckily both NATO and the EU have understood to do.

IMHO it is all just naked aggression and Russian (Putin and those that support him) merely want to turn modern Russia back into the old USSR again however they can. — dclements

Indeed. Except without the marxist-leninist ideology. That they don't have.

One failure that Ukraine did do was no to do general mobilization prior to the Russian attack. It was meaningless and simply an error to abstain from doing this as to "not to provoke" Russia. Putin will provoke himself to do what he wants with or without provocations from the other side. Yet still some seem to think that Putin is somehow reasonable. Attacking a large country as Ukraine isn't reasonable.

Indeed.

I think after this war is over (and hope we will see it in months, not years), Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth. It has now achieved unity against a common enemy and if it then joins the EU, I truly wish Ukraine will change it's old ways of corrupt oligarchs. The war party leading the country has been a centrist party. Ukrainian patriotism really is not some "right-wing" cause now, it's obvious to everyone and Ukrainians can make this their finest hour.

Of course everything can be fucked up, as people can mess things up. The huge influx of money to rebuild Ukraine can create even more corruption and if then the EU and the West just closes it's eyes from this fact as in Afghanistan, the outcome can be bad. The EU has to stick to it's bureaucratic details and it insistence on things like minority rights and so on when it comes to Ukraine. In fact Ukrainians actually want that. What better thing than to join exclusive club of EU members that all the time bitch about Brussels when the alternative is to be under the rule of Putin either directly or indirectly.

Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth. — ssu

Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view.

Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now. — ssu

I imagine force protection has to be the top criteria for such decisions. The Ukrainians cannot assume to know the depths of resources on the other side. There have been remarkably few instances of over extended forces on the Ukranian side. Most of those situations came from betting Putin would not actually do what he did.

Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view. — Benkei

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do.

Of course there are many obstacles before we even get there. Starting from the possibility that one will have a long exhausting war that will take down more than Ukraine. The help that Ukraine is getting now won't go on perpetually.

Lol yeah Eastern Europe being turned into a shoe and tyre factory for the rest of Western Europe while demolishing workers rights has been really great for it.

As an aside it's great to watch has Ukraine has now become a giant money laundering op for the US arms manufacturers and nothing else.

As yet another aside it's funny to watch Australians shit themselves about Chinese "expansionism" in the Solomons while also pretending that NATO is an innocent snowflake. The West is basically a giant joke at the expense of their own populations and everyone elses.

Edit: Americans shitting themselves is fun too. Again: anyone who think the US gives even the slightest bit of a flying fuck about "sovereignty" can go jump into an infinite hole.

Clowns with bricks for brains: "AmErIcA IsNt ReAlLY InVoLvED"

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do. — ssu

What were the debt-to-GDP ratios for eastern european countries when they joined? Also, how's Greece doing? How many public goods have they sold since the last crisis?

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. — ssu

You're assuming (again) that there are only two options. It may well be better for Ukraine to be in the EU than, for example, to be part of Russia, but why on earth would we consider those the only two options? It seems a common tactic (one which is being used to great effect in the media) to use the evils of one option as justification for advising another. It's as is you could point to the awfulness of my paisley tie (and it is awful), and use it to justify my wearing the salmon pink one (which is also awful) when I have an entire wardrobe full of much more sensible ties.

Bear-sucking clowns: "In between two lies, I so want to ask ridiculous questions forever, even though Google could easily answer them."

What were the debt-to-GDP ratios for eastern european countries when they joined? — Benkei

Actually, many had the same levels as now. Do notice that for example the Baltic States have had quite different economic policies than the older EU members, for example when it came to the financial crisis. Estonia opted for the most harshest austerity measures during the financial crisis, had a deep but quick economic recession and saw a very rapid recovery and now still has very low debt-to-GDP ratios (public or all together).

Estonia joined the EU in 2003. Now it's Government Debt to GDP is 18%. In Lithuania it's 47% and Latvia 44%. Far lower than Finland 69% or Netherlands 54,5%, which aren't yet countries with a severe debt problem. With Greece it's government debt to GDP is 205,6% for comparison.

(the dip of the financial crisis in can be seen with the Baltic States here with the Per Capita:)


This just undelines the agency of the state itself, be it in the EU or not. Yet being part of the EU has had obvious advantages for the former Soviet states.

Also, how's Greece doing? How many public goods have they sold since the last crisis? — Benkei

Greece is different. But one should note that it was the Greek leaders that opted eagerly to follow the advice of Wall Street bankers to create the problems at the first place. And this just underlines that every country actually has it's set of problems and possibilities. There's of course similarities, but you cannot bunch the states together.

Some countries are careful in avoiding a debt trap, which is naturally marketed for them.

Of course not. It must be said again and again and again that NATO is evil evil evil. Of COURSE! — Olivier5

There seems to be a growing trend in the West’s anti-Russia rhetoric to portray Russia as a “pariah state”. For example, Robert English, a “Russia expert” at the University of Southern California, has said:

Russia will be a pariah state in the eyes of many people forever — but at least for a decade to come, Until Putin goes, there'll be no sense of cleansing and starting over

Russia Will Be 'Pariah State' While Putin Is in Charge, Expert Says – Business Insider

This is being parroted across the globe by the West-controlled international media:

Russia invasion: Putin becoming 'pariah' before world stage, experts say - Fox News

Russia was once a place of fear and fascination – my children will know it only as a pariah state - The Independent

Russia will be a ‘pariah state in the eyes of many people forever’ and there’ll be no ‘starting over’ while Putin is still in charge, expert says - 198 Japan News

Putin’s Russia: From a ‘great power’ to a ‘pariah state’ - Al Jazeera

In the meantime, Zelensky is trying to blame Germany for the war and demanding that the Germans surrender their tanks to Ukraine. As correctly pointed out by Scholz, the Brits should provide the tanks, not the Germans. After all, this is America and Britain’s war, NOT Germany’s!

This shows that Zelensky is not only a certified clown but also increasingly irrational, as can also be seen from his claim that he is “ready to negotiate with Russia” but that he will keep fighting until Russia retreats or surrenders.

There are many other inconsistencies in the anti-Russian narrative. For example, we are told that Ukraine has been asking Britain for weapons for years but its request has been turned down “for fear of provoking Russia”.

But at the same time we are told that Britain has been supplying arms to Ukraine as well as training by special forces (SAS). This suggests that Britain has been backing Ukraine against Russia but won’t admit it. In other words, it has a hidden agenda.

Also, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin has said:

We believe that we can win. We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.

War in Ukraine: Latest developments – France24

Note that he said “we” which means that the US military considers itself at war with Russia. Certainly, America and Britain are waging economic and financial war on Russia and now, it seems, also military war by proxy.

In any case, a central question that requires an answer is why America and Britain are leading this crusade against Russia. Why America and its British Poodle? Why not Germany, India, or China?

What is the significance of the fact that US and UK economies largely revolve on finance, whilst the economies of countries like Germany are based on more honest means like industry, manufacture, and hard work?

How did America and Britain got all that money, if not by imperialist means?

Russia’s Lavrov warns of ‘real’ danger of World War III

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency.

He also criticised Kyiv’s approach to the talks, adding: “Goodwill has its limits. But if it isn’t reciprocal, that doesn’t help the negotiation process.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/25/russia-fm-lavrov-warns-of-real-danger-world-war-iii-liveblog

you love a bit of fear-porn, don't you? @frank too

Lavrov likes fear porn too.

It's stupid to call it a bluff, even if it is one.

Then again, why isn't it called fear porn when all the countries in Europe want to join NATO now? Do they really think Russia has the capacity to invade them too?

It's gone swellingly for them in Ukraine after all.

Are you afraid?

Seems like a good idea to take out a long-term lease on a luxury home and a sedan to go with it.

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency. — Manuel

This simply isn't fear porn.

We've talked at length how nuclear escalation is possible.

It only seems less likely now because both sides have accepted the current situation.

The danger, however, is that neither side is willing to give-up and the stakes are amazingly high and the current situation is evolving slowly but not a stalemate.

If either side (NATO or Russia) gives-up they lose credibility.

Russia would lose a lot more credibility, so much so that it's nearly impossible to imagine they would give-up and therefore would resort to tactical nuclear weapons if need be. Losing the war in Ukraine would likely unravel the Russian state.

Western states wouldn't unravel if Ukraine lost to Russia (whatever definition of loss we're going with), but the US would immediately lose credibility in 2 of the 3 pillars of American hegemony of finance and covert operations, leaving only hard military power which is simply not enough to prop up the American empire for a bunch of reasons.

The window of opportunity of a quick diplomatic resolution is unfortunately over and both sides have committed to military solutions.

There is still the potential for the West to manage the war to a military victory for Russia but simply declare that Russia "learned its lesson" and was "stopped", in which case both sides can say they win and the news cycle changes to something else and we basically never hear about the war again (just like Iraq and Afghanistan: one more pointless war that destroyed the lives of millions of people on the way to losing face vis-a-vis other smaller empires).

In other words, the current "political stability", in the sense the rapid escalations have stopped and the current warfare is simply accepted by both sides, is maintained and then wound down.

There are, however, plenty of ways the current stability, of violent destruction, could be destabilised and a new cycle of rapid escalation is triggered.

Obviously Ukraine may get desperate and find some escalation that triggers some unexpected escalation from Russia, which triggers escalation from the West and so on.

However, it may also be the West that triggers escalation with things like Finnish NATO bids, which Russia may not do anything about ... or maybe they will decide its unacceptable and launch nuclear weapons against Finland before they join NATO. That could be solved diplomatically with a treaty to not station nuclear weapons or foreign troops within Finland, so that the military situation would be exactly the same, with both Finland and Russia not planning to attack each other, just that Finland is part of NATO and so that's a Western "win" against Putin and makes the Ukraine war totally worth it, even if every single Ukrainian dies. That would be the diplomatic thing to do to try to avoid further escalation, but so far the West has been in favour of escalation ... of course, as long as its Ukrainians dying as mentioned. If it's Finns that risk a few nukes, maybe the West will be less escalatory and actually work out some sort of deal that Finland and/or Sweden join NATO without triggering some new round of escalation.

Keep in mind that the optimum military strategy for Russia is to break the ice on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation.

Therefore, if there is a political context conducive to the rationalisation, both domestically and to their remaining international partners, of the use of nuclear weapons they will likely take advantage of the provided opportunity.

The USA justified the use of nuclear weapons in Japan to save American lives in face of a fanatical enemy, and, that justification to save Russian lives in face of a fanatical enemy is likely to play just as well in Russia as it does in the US, if there is no conventional military victory relatively soon.

The disadvantages of breaking the ice of the use of nuclear weapons are also asymmetric. The main consequence is a new cycle of nuclear rearmament and proliferation around the globe. This is of course bad for Russia as it is everyone, but it could be argued it's even worse for NATO.

The situation only appears stable because we have become accustomed to it, and I would say the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by the end of this conflict as about 50%, although extremely limited, mainly to show they aren't bluffing; break the ice and see what happens.

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.

There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better.

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective. — boethius

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. Actually it's weird that he didn't use them yet. Is Putin too stupid to realize it ? Putin can always blame the West and say that he was forced to do it despite the repeated warnings. Why didn't he do launch nuclear tactic weapons yet? Is Putin such a coward pussy? C'mon there is no serious risk for Russia: sanctions are ineffective, India and China are with Russia, Putin will still be in power, fucking capitalist imperialism has tired everybody already, the West has no courage to retaliate, and it bears exactly all the responsibility if everything goes to shit. What is Putin still waiting? He would be at worst "only" victorious in Ukraine, at best the savior of all human kind. We should be all in favour of nuclear escalation if that's the only way to end the war for good.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. There is no sign of powerful allies of Russia joining the fight. So this talk of WW III is actually code for nuclear conflagration.

Lavrov is just sabre rattling with idle threats of nuclear conflagration. That’s all they’ve got left to scare NATO with. As for wether Putin is insane enough to press the button, I doubt it. Although if cornered it’s possible. But would he want to go down in history for such mindless destruction? I have been forming an opinion that he is legacy building and the legacy he has in mind is not that.

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged.

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation. — boethius

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that.