LuckyDog

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

There are official narrations and unofficial ones. In first it is true German gov. takes full responsbility (it cannot be otherwise, as they they are bounded by law). It is also fair to say German society as a whole did very good job at recognizing and internalizing their historical faults, which is very difficult thing to implement in reality.
Unfortunatelly, in reality we often encounter parallel narrations, when German common social conciousness do everything to push away responsibility by victim blaming, selective historical readings or focusing on own suffering.  There is still plenty of that in common communications; one just need to remember public figures like Erica Steinbach or former chancellor Schroeder. Add traditional Prussian (not German) language of disregard for Eastern neighours considered inferior  and "stateless" (not only against Poles, but also Czechs, Balts, Russians, Ukrainians etc.- it's surprising how this superiority complex simply don't want to die in practice, even after so many years), urge of DE oligarchic elites to make business with Russia at any cost, visible elements of economical colonialism in CEE, and -on CEE side- slow deconstruction of liberal democracy and rise of populism in many states.
In the effect we have a problem with common relations that goes well beyond differences re Russia. But perhaps we shouldn't talk about this issue too much here again, as it is deeply polarizing and may distract us from observing war.
 
Let's focus on new geopolitical devlopments...like sudden rise of Czech Navy.
 
 
 

Hi BeardieBloke.  That warning is my choice alone.  I do it so that someone can't say they were tricked into clicking for war coverage and then seeing things that upset their social/political sensibilities.  If anyone clicks and gets triggered, well, they can't say I didn't warn them.  The UKR articles there are all solid, but the sidebar links might fire some people up. 

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?

BBC Russia has done some amazing work in Russia throughout the conflict. Article below details losses among the 2nd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade of the GRU. Apparently lots of officers dead throughout its time in Ukraine since February, latest, was defending Lyman. Of particular note, the BBC reports that Russia attempts to hide the composition of units that are forced into defeats, emphasizing only less prestigious units.

A example given in the article, turns out personnel from the 18th Guards Motor Rifle Division, part of the Russian Navy’s Kaliningrad garrison, the 11th Army Corps, was also stationed in Kharkiv oblast and overrun during the Izyum offensive.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-63134219

LOL, best diplomatic response yet!! Andrij Melnyk is the Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany, so it is an official statement!!
 
edit: Sorry for the bad language, couldn't edit but thought it was appropriate.  

Enough said about washing machines. 
 

NS pipelines were sabotaged by Russia. They took a card out of the deck. Maintenance issues are the cover.
In reality it was a miscommunication at the latest coke party. Someone said "blow?", another said "a line?", then another said "two?".
The local naval commander then took action.
There were reports of US Naval anti-sub activity (sonar drops) in the area, like they were tracking or looking for  something. But, that's just RUMIT. I am sure by now if there was hard evidence, it would be out.
 
 

Maybe we can start a different thread, something like "all the bad things US is doing & has done".  That's fine, I'm US and we've done some despicable things.  And we've done a huge amount of good.  Go ahead and criticize all day -- in that thread.   Heck, let's start w Nicaraugua, 1926.  
And maybe start another thread "let's bitch about Stolz & Germany".  Lots of valid point to be made there.
If we could do these two threads it would really clean up this thread which has been the go-to for many people on what is happening in the war.  I want to be diligent in this forum and not post w/o having read everyone's earlier posts.  But this thread is getting polluted w endless speculation and bitching about things over which we have no control.  

By the way...

This is brilliant:
 

I find MacKay's constant use of non-English native speaker propaganda words like 'rashist invaders' to be an annoying affectation.
Is would be more amusing if fake Scotsman guy spoke mock pidgin Russiaglish, like 'Boris Alotovkrap' who used to troll (the other trolls) on ZH.
Death to moose and squirrel....

Careful, if the Russians read this we will be getting an anouncement from Moscow that the Ukrainian advance is an evil British plot involving NATO biological weapos and the notorious mercenary, special forces leaders Siward, Malcolm and Macduff.

A man trying to appear brave or powerful wears a chest full of medals, a man who IS brave and powerful has no need. Trying to decide where tis is on the scale?🤔

Regarding broadcasting the truth to RU population (and conduction Psy-Info-Ops) there are set of issues.
First, imagine you have a flat earthers cult that kills anyone who says earth is not flat. They are conditioned to believe in a flat earth by years of constant indoctrination from childhood. It starts at school. It is unwise to expect that simple facts will undo it in days or even weeks. 
Second, you are trying to convince people that they are evil murderers because they kill innocent people for the lie about earth. That's not something they are eager to accept at all. I mean inside they can believe you are right. Publicly they will still act as if nothing has changed.  
Third, the required linguistic skill level for effective PsyOp communication is too high. It is much higher than what is normally required and as such Western Intel orgs rarely have it. For example, I monitor UK MOD Telegram channel in RU. Their RU linguists are good. Like really good. But even they still fall a little tiny bit short compared to native speakers. Unfortunately, it makes their message somewhat awkward, less serious and significantly less effective. Their messages will not establish trusts required for successful PsyOps.
Fourth, which is continuation of third - even if you have required linguistic skill (Ukrainians have it) you still need to have knowledge of the enemy minds on level that even Ukrainians do not have. Ukraine is different country with different culture. With all their knowledge of RU they still struggle to craft effective message to RU population and have hard time finding psychological weak spots that can be exploited. Effective anti-RU PsyOps are unbelievably hard even for Ukranians.
But all is not lost. I like most of Steve suggestions above - limited and targeted PsyOps aimed at driving wedge where cracks already exist will work regardless of other shortcomings. For example, Western articles that Ultranationalists not liberals are threat to Putin got RU Nats very worried. Simple western media articles managed to get under RU Nat skins. Imagine what a persistent campaign would do. 

TURN OFF YOUR PHONE, GIVE YOUR COMPUTER TO YOUR MOTHER, AND BLEEPING PAY ATTENTION. Or in about five years you will be pondering how to immigrate to Luhansk, for your own safety. Best advice you will ever get on this forum.

To continue with the full disclosure policy, I should be done with the getting married part 15 hours from now, so it will be down to the work being BS  

You should put that on a T Shirt.

So argument by Exception rather than General rule ? Fine . That has happened once  in the last hundred years  in Australia and it happened with the co-operation of  many  interested parties in  Australia at the time - nothing at all to do with the Queen/Monarchy - and more to do with the Australian Senate   . No one has yet tried this in  NZ   - there was an incident in 1926  in Canada  which was controversial  but again   1 event in the last hundred years worthy of note .

You seem to have some misunderstandings as to how Elected Governments in the West work ?
The Monarchy has no power at all - its there for the Tourists  . The Prime Minister is always elected by members of his/her own party - works the same in all English based Parliamentary systems around the planet - You get to elect the party - not decide who is in  cabinet . The House of Lords is really  only a historical anomaly in the UK - and we commonwealth citizens generally  like our History . This particular part of the British system has not really been copied  over to  AUS/NZ/CAN  and elsewhere  - but we do get our Honors lists - and people like them .
Governments once elected are free to pursue whatever policies they like - but they do need to keep the electorates happy to some degree - since they are up for re-election again 3-4-5 years  . A Elected Government which chooses to follow unpopular policies won't be in Government for long .
 

Data suggests otherwise ...
Democracy Data Explorer - Our World in Data
 

No, it is not. Do not go there.

No whispers on my end and I could not use them even if there were.
Striking back and taking back are two very different things.  I stated this way back, btw, but it got lost.  I have always been concerned over the Crimea and how it fits into a Ukrainian victory.  I think the UA can hammer away at clear military targets in Crimea with abandon.  It is when/if the UA actually arrives in Sevastopol that I start to wonder.
Again, if Russia collapsed as a state or a new government come in, well all bets are off.  However, with the current regime in power the loss of Sevastopol is about as palatable as the loss of Norfolk would be to the US. That has nothing to do with the noises coming out of the Kremlin, it is a real consideration going into this war.  It has been from the start.
Look, lets go absurdum here for a moment.  Let say the UA rolls right over the border and Belgorod.  Based on the law of armed conflict, they are perfectly within their rights to attack legitimate military targets that support or act as staging bases in that city.  Belgorod is about 30km from the border and well within what the UA has demonstrated it is capable of - then why aren't they?  Well, likely because they know it would risk triggering an escalation that no one wants.  Ok, maybe the Russians are full of crap and the UA takes Belgorod and Russia does nothing...onto Moscow?  I know it is stupid and never going to happen but the point is that Russia does have an existential line somewhere that leads us into very dark places.  Places where the cost of admission far outstrips this entire war.
So, is Crimea one of those places?  I honestly do not know.  Even before 2014, when Crimea was part of the Ukraine, the Russians had freedom to use Sevastopol.  I am pretty sure that deal is off the table, so Crimea back in Ukraine very likely means no Sevastopol for Russia, which makes me very nervous and always did.  We can debate back and forth on this; however, we will not solve it here. This will be part of some very cold calculations in capitals across the west and the Kremlin itself.
And again, I could be totally wrong.  Maybe it is all bluster and BS, and Russia knows its nuclear arsenal is as effective as its mob of tanks in storage were.  Or maybe there is no "red-line" for Russia and we are self-restraining for zero reason.  However, from my point of view at least, there is a seed of doubt/concern, and I would be remiss not to put it out there so people can stay informed and use it, or not, in how they come to terms with this war for themselves. 
I would close this off with a bit of advice - avoid people who always and only tell you what you want to hear, they are most likely lying to you.
 

Ok, so let's try and have an actual conversation about all this.  Why not?  It is "forbidden discussions" week on the thread while we wait for the UA to reload.
First, lets put the emotion to one side for a moment - we saw how well that worked last time - and try to arrive at common ground.  I am not going to comment on forum policy or poor BFCElvis' endless and thankless work in trying to keep this place from become another internet cesspool - if you have a problem with forum policy, or felt you have been wronged in some way, take it up with him and BFC.
So what to do about Russia?  Russians everywhere?  They started a land war in Europe and they are supporting it, to some extent, for 6 months while their military is, in part, committing what is pretty much confirmed as systemic war crimes.
So how will justice be served in the prosecution of this war?  How will the offenders be made to pay so that it serves as an example to those that would re-offend?
Legally.  
The whole point of this war, and one of the big reasons why we care so much is that this is not just an unjustified invasion of Ukraine, it is an attack on the entire rules based international order.  In 1949, we all sat down, even Russia within the USSR, and said that this sort of action was illegal.  Its premise and definitely in its prosecution, by Russia, have been illegal within international law and the Law of Armed Conflict.  Russia's position, beyond some very weak tea technical arguments - SMO, has been - "ya, so what are you going to do about it...we are Russia and have nukes?"
That will not stand.  It cannot stand.  It threatens the entire scheme at its heart.  That scheme, btw, pays for our lifestyles and guarantors the stability and security we need to thrive, get richer and fatter, and have the freedom to yell at each other over all sorts of stuff.
So how will we put Russia back in the box?  Well first steps are to ensure it gets the spanking it so much deserves on the battlefield.  The next step, and it is very important, is to prosecute those responsible in Russia for this atrocity, within the frameworks of the law.
"Oh but the law is so "woke", we need to get medieval here to send a real message!"
1.  Shh, grown ups talking.
2.  If we step outside the legal framework, the one we built, we will break it ourselves, which in many ways is worse.
Don't believe me, well we have a convenient historical example - Iraq 2003. 
And before anyone freaks out, let me start by saying that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is not anywhere near what is happening in Ukraine.  The legal justification for that war was "thin" but it adhered to the rules far closer than what we are seeing today.  It was unsanctioned by UN, the evidence for the whole thing turned out to be incorrect; however, the US made a case for self-defence against a known international offender, one who had not only invaded another country but also threatened "the great Satan" repeatedly.  Further the US prosecuted that war under the LOAC.
However the repurcutions of that action, one the edge of legality in some places are still being felt today.  In Putin's last speech he references "terror/terrorism" 5 times as as a justification for this war.  The lesson here is that if we fracture to system of order, very bad things start to happen.
So we will hold Russia accountable.  We will demand reparations for lifting sanctions.  We will demand the turning over of war criminals for prosecution.  We will employ national security mechanisms to find and arrest anyone who supported Russia's war outside of the laws of whatever country they are in.  And we will do so within the defined limitations of the law.
Anything beyond that is a revenge fantasy that serves no real purpose in discussing this war.  Now are we able to continue on in peace and harmony?

Exactly.