Tux

I wish it were but that's not how American politics works these days. Musk is acting as a useful idiot in this case and amplifying a slowly increasing panic about the possibility of a nuclear war in order to force a ceasefire on Ukraine. It's out there on Tucker, Tulsi Gabbard, Tracey, Greenwald, Chomsky, Fox News, etc. You could easily call it a hostile propaganda campaign (nb: you should).

Given Elon Musk's record of being less than honest, and of relying for his defence in court on the idea that people shouldn't believe what he says, I don't think he should get the benefit of the doubt on anything.

For those scoffing at Russia preparing defences prompted by the Tweet showing a linear obstacle being created, I might suggest that many would say something along the lines of "they've had months to prepare defences but didn't bother ... how amateurish" had they not done so - in fact there are a bunch of posts to this effect on this thread regarding ground that Ukrainian forces have recently liberated.  Integrated obstacles are a key element of any deliberate defence and are as relevant in the 21st Century as they have been since the advent of warfare as I'm sure @The_Capt will pitch in and confirm.  If this debate is to remain informed, we need to beware the confirmation bias that is evident from this criticism of Russia preparing defences as well as other related influences.  Objective and informed analysis should be our watchwords.

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.
While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:
Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?
If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?
It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 
I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.
I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.
While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:
Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?
If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?
It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 
I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.
I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.
While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:
Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?
If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?
It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 
I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.
I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.
While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:
Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?
If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?
It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 
I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.
I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

Hi, all.  This is my first post on any forum thread for many years but I'd like to say I have been reading this one avidly since the start of the war and I very much appreciate the balance you have struck between as-it-happens commentary, critical analysis and (often extremely well) educated opinion.  I agree with those before me who've noted that there doesn't seem to be a comparable resource anywhere else online.
While I'm loathe to clutter the thread with idle speculation (I admit I occasionally find myself having to skim-read a few pages whenever someone revives the 'nuclear question') I thought this might be as good a place as any to ask a question that's been niggling away at me for a few weeks now.  Apologies in advance since I'm pretty sure I'm going to find myself tumbling down the reverse slope of Mount Stupid as a result of this post...  Still, here goes:
Is there a chance that Putin is now trying to get NATO into this war?
If Russia can probably-but-definitely-not blow up some gas lines; sabotage the odd power-supply cable to a NATO member; unleash a low-level cyber attack on a few airports and continually attack Ukrainian civilian targets can they goad NATO into an overt conventional confrontation that gives Putin the excuse he needs to withdraw from Ukraine?  Can he then claim that Russia was forced to invade Ukraine by insidious NATO, who then sprang the trap, stabbing Russia's mighty armed forces in the back?  Maybe that allows Russians to swerve the cognitive dissonance caused by a defeat to Ukraine and instead spit at the treachery employed by the Anglo-Saxon-dominated West to subdue mighty Russia?  Most importantly, maybe all that keeps Putin in power?
It has to be sold as purely NATO's plan to get involved, so provocations have to be relatively subtle and ideally plausibly-deniable.  It will lead to Russia's total military defeat but that's basically already the case, if not now then imminently so. 
I also think it could be well worth NATO refusing to grant Putin such an excuse, even if it means this war lasting longer than otherwise necessary (I hate myself for writing it, don't worry).  Our goal is to drive a long-term cultural change in Russia and for that reason we have to deny them the ability to cry foul and to resolve to try again or even to get 'revenge' in future.  In my opinion it was the denial of such plausible counter-narratives to 1940s Germany and Japan which carried a lot of weight in the post-war period.  The aggressors have to think, nay know that they tried violence, they threw everything at it and, in a square fight, they failed.
I have half a dozen other directions from which to come at this and I really don't like the way it potentially 'justifies' NATO inaction but this post is already long enough and I'm interested in what you good people think.

I mean, we all know that Putin couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, right?  I learned a long time ago (mostly from discussions on this forum, to be honest!) to look at basically everything Putin does through the lens of Russian internal politics because that is where his power comes from and therefore where all of his motivations are rooted.  That is the only stage on which his moves need to make any sort of sense.

I have to temporarily leave the discussion, as after yesterday's strike, electricity is being delivered strictly on schedule. I'll be back as soon as the power comes back.

Subtlety is rarely on show in his posts.

Either with us or without us .... congratulations on winning comedy hour with a false dichotomy.  I support a Ukrainian victory, I have a flushable toilet and know how to use it, so I tick the civilization box if that is the measure by which civilization has been judged occasionally in this thread.  I am not and never have suggested that Ukraine should cease existing, and I am not taking the Russian side.  So "hypocritically" shall I take a dump on the floor for expressing this view?

I’m in the missile camp for two reasons: 
1. Russia wouldn’t want to admit that Ukraine has a heavy long range missile. 
2. Ukraine wouldn’t want to admit it has a heavy long range missile.
Thus, every other explanation under the sun will be posited, claimed, hinted at and asserted.

silly boy, rich people don't pay taxes..   😎

Good point. 
Regarding that “warning” though, why not always appending a similar labeling for links to any conservative sites that might also have headlines with political slants. Or maybe better to simply drop the whole political labeling thing and assumptions about tender feelings among the huge population here. Because the emphasis simply underscores the politics, not the information itself.

Doesn't that just kinda mean they might be right? Considering the Iraq war was probably a mistake and in hindsight completely based on lies.

There's some irony in "LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT OWN RISK" when its the con sites that are pushing the Kremlin propaganda.

Since when did what become an acknowledged fact?  
To restate my point - the Afghan withdrawal pathway started in February 2020 and was supposed to have been put to bed well before it actually was put to bed.  There is an argument to say that it was sooner than that as the previous US administration was widely reported to be on the cusp of a deal in 2019 but stepped away from the dialogue in September 2019 following the death of US personnel in a Kabul IED attack.  From those start points the obvious question to ask in relation to the theory that the Afghan withdrawal is related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February this year is ... was a Russian invasion of Ukraine on the cards in 2019 or 2020?
In my response to the reemergence of this canard ... President Biden announced the withdrawal decision on April 14, 2021 and being an insider on matters Afghan and somebody who regularly attended meetings at the European Delegation, HQ Resolute Support and the UK and US embassies, I can tell you for a fact that nobody in the international community in Kabul had any idea which way President Biden was going to go until the decision was announced.  The supplementary question; therefore, is ... was a Russian invasion of Ukraine on the cards in April 2021?  The article I posted in my last post indicates that this was not the case until September 2021 which was after the last US service member walked up the ramp of a C17 in Kabul. 
The main problem with politically motivated theories of this ilk (and this is one, because it has been doing the rounds for at least over a month now and the handling of the Afghan withdrawal is a subject of justified scrutiny in the US) is that very few people are prepared to run the facts down and, as I said in my August 18 post, the most obvious explanation is usually the right one
Feel free to challenge any of the above (on another thread) but Afghanistan and intelligence analysis is my day job, so it is always handy to have some facts to hand before doing so.
As to "actual proof that there was early intel" - that is a big ask - intelligence is generally classified and/or on a limited distribution.
To bring this back on topic - guess which country beginning with 'R' and ending with 'ussian Federation' has been buying up container loads of medical equipment, body armour, helmets and other assorted military paraphernalia from local suppliers in Kabul this month?

I do wish these videos would show the actual engagement, without edits.  These edited videos, which skip from the early fight to the aftermath, without the interesting bit in-between are frustrating. 

Coming up next in "How hot is Ukraine gonna get?": How cold is Ukraine gonna get?

Is it me, or does a lot of the sound in the video of our favourite TikTok warriors sound like it was lifted from Call of Duty or somesuch?
No way was that a phone or Go Pro picking up actual combat sounds.

No, you and others turn a blind eye to Kraze defacto blatantly calling for genocide of all Russians and Arabs. He walked a thin threaded line for a long time trying to stay just on the 'correct' part of the line (so he would be allowed to continue).
But it was clear for a while (at least to me) that he was formulating a problem for which the only requirement can be to 'get rid of all Russians'. Than he went further and included all Arabs in it for good measure.
Do you 'defend' that?

Sorry for the delayed response but am on the road. Your effort deserves an answer. Couple points:
”Wokism” is not being enforced by a central authority, at least not in my country.  It is a social movement made be people free to do so.  Governments are getting onboard because in a democracy they need to in order to remain in power”
Japan was successful in expunging its imperial ambitions, which is clear evidence that a nation of people can reinvent itself.
The picture that you and others paint of Russia and all Russians make that impossible.  By the metric you are employing in your very detailed post Russians are irredeemable, all of them.  In fact that has been a central argument on this topic.  Now if you are arguing that Russians can change themselves over time, then we are now talking solutions and not revenge fantasies, which is excellent.
I would argue the best strategy is to pull Ukraine into collective defence and security mechanisms that Russia has never directly challenged.  Rebuild your nation.  Compress and contain Russia and its influence.  Leave sanctions and restrictions in place until Russia finds a leadership that is willing to cooperate in prosecution of war crimes and payment of reparations.  Then influence and encourage an internal Russian government that can conduct and support an effort to reduce the imperial impulse the nation has demonstrated - along with corruption, oppression and lack of democratic freedoms.
However in my vision, it need be accepted that Russia is not irredeemable, nor is every Russian a heartless invader nor active participant in this, or any other war.  One must accept that that are people of varying ideology and beliefs - they just keep turning to the wrong ones as their leadership.  
 

I'll voice another unpopular opinion: If I have to choose between a Russian victory in Ukraine and all out nuclear war I'll take the Russian victory. The one would cause incredible suffering, the other risks billions of lives and even human civilization.
Before someone claims I'd say something else if it was Germany instead of Ukraine: No, I wouldn't.

And the forum descends into idiocy.  F.  I think I'm out for a while.  
Page after page of pointless drivel.  For example, folks endlessly blathering about how the west is going to remake russia -- guess what, we don't get to do that.  Only they can do that because we are not occupying russia, ever.