Ukraine: Invasion Imminent?

[melthebell 863]

1 hour ago, cgksheff said:

An opinion piece by Dominic Lawson.

I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but it is well worth reading as food for thought.

“Moscow's claims of what it might do to the UK, in retaliation for our support of Ukraine's fight against the Russian invader, get more blood-curdling by the day.

Last week one of Russian state TV's most popular programmes showed a map of Europe, and in how short a time various cities could, allegedly, be demolished by Moscow's hypersonic nuclear missile, Sarmat, when fired from the western-most Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Alexei Zhuravlev exclaimed: 'One Sarmat and that's it — the British Isles are no more.' Another angry presenter on the programme boasted it would take one of these missiles '202 seconds to hit London' from Kaliningrad. In fact, there is no missile launch site in Kaliningrad, or anywhere near it. And last week the Pentagon's press secretary, John Kirby, said that the earlier test launch of Sarmat 'was not deemed to be a threat to the United States or its allies'.

Make of that what you will; but it seemed that the Pentagon, not known for its relaxed attitude to Russian military capabilities, was saying that Moscow's latest threat was empty (while terrifying). Indeed, the performance of the Russian military to date, in its invasion of Ukraine, has been startling only in its primitiveness.

The same Russian state TV had claimed, just before the invasion, that Kyiv would fall 'within 11 minutes'. This, or something like it, may have been what President Vladimir Putin himself believed, having been promised that by his military commanders.

That is what happens in a country where deception is the governing principle of communication, from top to bottom. Flattering fantasies come to be believed, and the truth is never acceptable: it would be more than someone's job is worth to tell it.

This sort of thing is not unknown in the West — British Prime Ministers and American Presidents are frequently told what their advisers think they want to hear. But ours are societies with a querulously independent press and a firm tradition of legal protection for the rights of the individual against the state. Russia has never had this.

As a result, its leaders can get away with any lie, however outrageous, in part because of the undoubtedly intense patriotism of the typical Russian, who equates this with faith in the ruler — and always has.

Among the more risible such lies recently propagated on Russian state television was the claim, just before the invasion of Ukraine (you know, the invasion which in February Putin repeatedly told visiting Western leaders would never happen), that the British Royal Family had been pushing the idea of 'a war with Ukraine', in order to deflect attention from the travails of Prince Andrew — and that this somehow determined the behaviour of the British government.

When telling the Russian people this, Dmitry Kiselyov, known as 'Putin's mouthpiece', almost certainly didn't believe it himself. But that is the point. As the former Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times, Charles Clover, explained some years ago: 'Putin has correctly surmised that lies unite rather than divide Russia's political class. The greater and more obvious the lie, the more his subjects demonstrate their loyalty by accepting it, and the more they participate in the great sacral mystery of Kremlin power.'

The most grotesque lies are as much designed to demonise the Kremlin's enemies, as to boost the mystical power of the country's ruler. Thus the Ukrainian government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has been described — again on Russian state television — as one comprising (variously), Nazis, drug addicts, Satan-worshippers, and Masonic sodomites.

This approach is not just that of attention-seeking TV presenters. Major General Igor Konashenkov, the chief spokesman for the Russian military, in one of his recent briefings, insisted that the Ukrainians had been supplied by the U.S. military with a troupe of migratory birds trained to fly to Russia, where our feathered friends would drop 'bioweapons'.

This is a distant echo of Operation Infektion, the KGB disinformation campaign to propagate the idea that the CIA created the AIDS virus as part of a biological weapons project. It was designed to stir up popular anger at U.S. military bases during the cold war, portrayed by the KGB as the cause of AIDS outbreaks in local populations.

The monstrous lie was successfully spread across the world by the KGB, and may well have contributed to the refusal of the Moscow-trained South African President Thabo Mbeki to accept the true cause of the virus that was killing millions of his countrymen. The consequence was appalling.

It is obviously significant that Putin was a KGB officer. As the émigré Russian novelist Vladimir Sorokin wrote at the outset of the Ukraine invasion, described by the Kremlin as 'a special operation': 'For Putin, life itself has always been a special operation. From the black order of the KGB, he learned not only contempt for 'normal people', but also its main principle: not a single word of truth.'

But it would be wrong to see the culture of 'not a single word of truth' as peculiar to the KGB, or as a legacy of the period of Communist rule. It goes much deeper and further back than that.

It is obviously significant that Putin was a KGB officer. As the émigré Russian novelist Vladimir Sorokin wrote at the outset of the Ukraine invasion, described by the Kremlin as 'a special operation': 'For Putin, life itself has always been a special operation'

It is obviously significant that Putin was a KGB officer. As the émigré Russian novelist Vladimir Sorokin wrote at the outset of the Ukraine invasion, described by the Kremlin as 'a special operation': 'For Putin, life itself has always been a special operation'

One of the most remarkable books on the subject was Astolphe de Custine's Letters From Russia. This was the result of a stay in this vast country by that French aristocrat in 1839.

De Custine went there as a sympathiser with the idea of a nation under the firm rule of a Tsar: not surprisingly, since both his father and grandfather had been guillotined in the wake of the French Revolution. Yet he discovered, to his shock, what the effects were of Tsarist autocratic rule on the character of the Russian people.

De Custine encountered a liberal Russian prince, who informed him: 'It has led to a degeneration of language in Russia to the point where speech is now considered merely a trap: our government feeds on lies, because truth frightens the tyrant as it does the slave.'

And de Custine himself concluded, at the end of his journey: 'Russians of every class conspire together with wonderful mutual understanding to ensure the triumph of duplicity in their country. They have a dexterity in lying and a natural talent for falsehood, the success of which repels my sincerity as much as it strikes terror in my heart.' He returned to France a convert to the merits of constitutional government.

Perhaps the best recent book touching on this phenomenon is Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia To Confront The West, published in 2018. The author, Keir Giles, worked in Moscow during the 1990s, and is now a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia Programme.

Giles observed: 'The English word 'lie' does not convey the wide range of modalities of Russian deception . . . When reviewing an early draft of this book, a Russian academic suggested avoiding the word 'lie' altogether, as its emotive nature in English was not appropriate for describing a shared conspiracy in avoiding the truth as a survival mechanism.'

I gained some sense of this when, in the 1970s, my paternal grandfather's first cousin Lev visited the UK for a scientific conference: he was a very senior figure at what was then Leningrad University, and was able to see his British relatives without a KGB minder. Lev was astounded to observe the chaos of the 'winter of discontent' under the then Labour government.

His astonishment was because he had read about bodies going unburied, and so on, in Pravda, then the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — and had therefore assumed it was not true. But this unexpected discovery did not alter his profound cynicism about the deceitfulness of the rulers of his country.

Few have more cause for such absolute lack of faith in the Kremlin's word than the Ukrainian people and their government. For this reason, I cannot imagine the war being concluded soon, or ever, with a formal agreement between the two sides. Kyiv knows better than to take Putin's word for anything, including the time of day. The lies will never stop.”

Interesting read thank you, regarding all of the nuke threats I do believe are just that, threats, they're still living in the cold war era and keep digging out this threat every 5 minutes

[melthebell 863]

Lol tennis players opinions not news shocker

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/61293193

[The_DADDY 3,475]

Andy Murray is right to not support the banning of Russian players in my view. They have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

The Russian State has manipulated sport as an important propaganda vehicle for a hundred years(as have other countries).

Russian athletes are tightly controlled by the State and are expected to do their bidding. 

Currently dozens of Russian sportsmen and women are actively endorsing Putin's War.

 

Sadly you cannot be a successful Russian athlete without being controlled by the State-that is the Russian way.

Long term it may make the Russians question their leaders.

Short term it prevents Putin from using them as a propaganda tool even if the message is only 'Everything is normal.'

 

[Baron99 795]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The Russian State has manipulated sport as an important propaganda vehicle for a hundred years(as have other countries).

Russian athletes are tightly controlled by the State and are expected to do their bidding. 

Currently dozens of Russian sportsmen and women are actively endorsing Putin's War.

 

Sadly you cannot be a successful Russian athlete without being controlled by the State-that is the Russian way.

Long term it may make the Russians question their leaders.

Short term it prevents Putin from using them as a propaganda tool even if the message is only 'Everything is normal.'

 

And of course it also saves any embarrassment of having any tennis players using Wimbledon as a potential platform for throwing their weight behind Putin.  Remember the Russian para Olympian from a few months ago who walked on to the medal podium with a "Z" stitched on to his tracksuit. 

[crazyhorse 37]

On 29/04/2022 at 23:56, makapaka said:

I don’t think they’re fearful of invasion. I think they’re in fear of having nuclear weapons parked on their borders. That might sound irrational- but we have a nuclear deterrent so we’re obviously also concerned.

 

i agree with some of what you say and I’m certainly no sympathiser - but we had Russia upto east Germany and kicked back - and we’ve got nato upto (potentially) Ukraine and they’ve kicked back.

 

diplomacy is the solution to all of this - it’s crazy that we can end mankind over territory in the modern age.

 

 

 

Why did 12 countries join nato in the last 20 years?

The reason 12 joined NATO is that they are (rightly) terrified of a conventialy superior (and nuclear armed) Russia invading their countries...as has historically happened to some of them.

 

As for fear of NATO nuclear weapons...

The Russians probably have tactical nuclear weapons stored in their Baltic Sea enclave Kaliningrad...

...do next door neighbours Poland and Lithuania invade...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Did NATO ever invade the Warsaw Pact (when it existed) when it was up against our borders?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Are we currently invading the (nuclear armed) Russian Federation and it's Belorussian lackey...who are currently up against NATO borders in Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Turkey?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Was Ukraine ever a NATO member?...Nope.

 

Have NATO strategic or tactical (if NATO has any left in service) nuclear weapons ever been deployed to Ukrainian soil or waters?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Even at the height of Cold War 1, intermediate range cruise missiles were only ever deployed to a handful of countries (us primarily)...due to public protest.

 

Of course I can't prove that Ukraine is not run and populated entirely by Nazis, drug addicts or a combination of both...

I can't prove that NATO and the slippery Yanks and Brits have not deployed weapons of mass destruction in secret bases in Ukraine...

I can't prove we haven't weaponised migratory birds to infect Russia with a bioweapon...as some Russian said the other day...

I cannot prove we didn't create the AIDS virus and release it from NATO bases...as the Russians said back in the 80s (the reason Moscow trained Thabo Mbeki refused to accept the scientific explanation for AIDS in South Africa I believe).

 

Nor can I prove that there isn't a blue teapot circling Saturn between the orbits of Titan and Iapetus...but I think I can say with near certainty that there isn't.

 

The Russian leadership don't fear NATO nuclear weapons...they fear freedom...as all tyrants do.

Edited May 2, 2022 by crazyhorse

[crazyhorse 37]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

And of course it also saves any embarrassment of having any tennis players using Wimbledon as a potential platform for throwing their weight behind Putin.  Remember the Russian para Olympian from a few months ago who walked on to the medal podium with a "Z" stitched on to his tracksuit. 

It would have had the same effect as seeing the Swastika tattooed on Trevor's forehead in Alan Clarke's 1982 TV film "Made In Britain"...

 

Correct decision by Wimbledon...some of these Russians are daft enough to do that.

[Kidorry 189]

Just had news from a Ukranian friend that 2 of my wives friends have been shot . One by a sniper and the other when driving his car. So much for Russian humanity.

[crazyhorse 37]

1 hour ago, Kidorry said:

Just had news from a Ukranian friend that 2 of my wives friends have been shot . One by a sniper and the other when driving his car. So much for Russian humanity.

That's shocking...I don't know what to say.

Ukraine didn't deserve any of this...

[Guest makapaka]

17 hours ago, crazyhorse said:

The reason 12 joined NATO is that they are (rightly) terrified of a conventialy superior (and nuclear armed) Russia invading their countries...as has historically happened to some of them.

 

As for fear of NATO nuclear weapons...

The Russians probably have tactical nuclear weapons stored in their Baltic Sea enclave Kaliningrad...

...do next door neighbours Poland and Lithuania invade...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Did NATO ever invade the Warsaw Pact (when it existed) when it was up against our borders?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Are we currently invading the (nuclear armed) Russian Federation and it's Belorussian lackey...who are currently up against NATO borders in Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Turkey?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Was Ukraine ever a NATO member?...Nope.

 

Have NATO strategic or tactical (if NATO has any left in service) nuclear weapons ever been deployed to Ukrainian soil or waters?...Nope.

Because NATO is a defensive alliance.

 

Even at the height of Cold War 1, intermediate range cruise missiles were only ever deployed to a handful of countries (us primarily)...due to public protest.

 

Of course I can't prove that Ukraine is not run and populated entirely by Nazis, drug addicts or a combination of both...

I can't prove that NATO and the slippery Yanks and Brits have not deployed weapons of mass destruction in secret bases in Ukraine...

I can't prove we haven't weaponised migratory birds to infect Russia with a bioweapon...as some Russian said the other day...

I cannot prove we didn't create the AIDS virus and release it from NATO bases...as the Russians said back in the 80s (the reason Moscow trained Thabo Mbeki refused to accept the scientific explanation for AIDS in South Africa I believe).

 

Nor can I prove that there isn't a blue teapot circling Saturn between the orbits of Titan and Iapetus...but I think I can say with near certainty that there isn't.

 

The Russian leadership don't fear NATO nuclear weapons...they fear freedom...as all tyrants do.

What was NATO set up for?

[L00b 441]

17 minutes ago, makapaka said:

What was NATO set up for?

For exactly what is happening now: as a counterpoint to a belligerent, expansionist Russia.

 

Hence Finland, Sweden and Moldova all now looking to join NATO post-haste.

 

Looking increasingly like not a second too late, either:

 

 

No prizes for guessing why Vlad has done nowt whatsoever in respect of Poland, Czechia and all the other ex-USSR, since-NATO’d east European countries that have been sending, and continue to send, mountains of hardware to Ukraine.

Edited May 3, 2022 by L00b

[Guest]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

For exactly what is happening now: as a counterpoint to a belligerent, expansionist Russia.

 

Hence Finland, Sweden and Moldova all now looking to join NATO post-haste.

 

Looking increasingly like not a second too late, either:

 

 

 

That's nothing, according to Lavrov, even Israel is pro nazi