Russian Troop Movements Reported Near Ukraine

We don't know. Many unanswered questions here...

This deployment was always very obvious and clearly telegraphed, ending in a series of drills as announced. The strategic direction of the deployment and the political messaging were also laid on with a trowel. It was not by any measure a stealth operation.

Similarly, Russia was putting many of its best goods in the shop window, with a high chance of losing a sizeable percentage of them had combat operations actually taken place. In essence, this was not really the classic Russian act of war, with little attempt at maskirovka.

Moreover, Ukraine stood its ground and has ended up with firmer pledges of US military support and possible NATO membership than it had at the start. Hardly the obvious win you would think the Russians were expecting - and you could say Putin "blinked"...

...and yet...

I recall from the events of 2014 that the Russians initially did something very similar in Donbas, only to apparently pull back the BTGs. In fact, they had used the big deployment to seed stay-behind elements that were later fed covertly into the rebel held Donbas.

My sense is that if the Russians are serious about combat, they will again use expendable kit up front, supported by sophisticated key assets and lots of artillery situated just out of Ukraine's reach. They will also make sure that they have the means to neutralise the Bayraktars. This is what we should be looking for in the wake of ENDEX...
What do you think the chances are that they really gave in and backed down because there was simply nothing more to be gained?

Biden did not flinch, NATO was conspicuously united and even the EU was quite clear by its standards.

Was this perhaps one of Putin's manoeuvres to test the resolve of Biden and the West?
 
As for the UK then there are no any ruling elites and power does belong to the people, does it?

Power is mitigated by checks and balances. Consequently, we do not veer too much either way from a set normality in which the individual is largely respected, can get on with their life and does not face onerous punishment.

The powerful elites basically know how far they can push it without consequences. It is not too far. The case in your kleptocracy is that the checks and balances are neutered and the rule of law is largely defunct because it is what Putin et al say it is.

As a result, the normality varies to the extreme and an individual outside the norm in any way cannot always be sure that they will not fall out of a window.
 
What do you think the chances are that they really gave in and backed down because there was simply nothing more to be gained?

Biden did not flinch, NATO was conspicuously united and even the EU was quite clear by its standards.

Was this perhaps one of Putin's manoeuvres to test the resolve of Biden and the West?

No, they certainly haven't backed down, but I'd agree that this was a test of NATO and especially Biden's resolve. Also possibly to see if they could split Europe from the US over Nordstream 2. This is classic Putin chess playing; he makes an input and then he waits to see the outcome, having a number of counter moves already in mind.

To be frank, this was far too obvious to be a genuine Russian invasion. For Erdogan yes, Putin, no. It was a test. The Russian Army could not afford to lose their best kit on such a scale for limited gains. Strategically, Putin has what he wants already. There is the tactical matter of water for Crimea, but that cat can be skinned in other ways. To paraphrase the terms of Elizabethan torture, this was the "display of the instruments"...

The next moves are already in play - troops leave, but much of the kit stays in situ. Zelensky invited to Moscow "at any time". Nordstream 2 is still on track and the EU is relieved that there has been no conflict. I suspect that Zelensky's visit will be to tell him what Moscow's red-lines regarding Kiev are, what the penalties will be for infringement and what the rewards will be for being a good boy. I suspect how Zelensky responds will determine Putin's next move. I also think VVP would prefer to forestall any overt military action against Ukraine at least until Nordstream 2 is finished (which is only months away)....
 
Last edited:
why not share how you could know what’s been said between the parties involved in private.
That ain't how it works. You made the claim, you back it up.

If you believe the NATO countries received Syrian permission, you prove - prove, not infer - that they did.

Or just admit you made it up. Either's good.
 
Power is mitigated by checks and balances. Consequently, we do not veer too much either way from a set normality in which the individual is largely respected, can get on with their life and does not face onerous punishment.

The powerful elites basically know how far they can push it without consequences. It is not too far. The case in your kleptocracy is that the checks and balances are neutered and the rule of law is largely defunct because it is what Putin et al say it is.

As a result, the normality varies to the extreme and an individual outside the norm in any way cannot always be sure that they will not fall out of a window.
Alas, it is a bitter truth and Russia is in hands of Crooks and Thieves with their ringleader Putin.
At the same time I'm happy that power in the UK belongs to the people.
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
That ain't how it works. You made the claim, you back it up.

If you believe the NATO countries received Syrian permission, you prove - prove, not infer - that they did.

Or just admit you made it up. Either's good.

Don’t worry, even though you’ve now three times said I’ve said something that I haven’t, I can wait for you to post where you think Ive said the things you allege.

Theres no rush, I can wait........My posts are all here for every other poster to see.....Feel free to back up your allegations.

The best part is that I’ve been very very very very clear that I don’t know what has been said behind closed doors..........

Then you see what I’ve posted and try to pretend I’ve said something completely different, it’s quite laughable really.

But, as per above, I can wait. I don’t expect you to be able to actually quote the things I haven’t said, but feel free to have a go.
It might give everyone else a bit of a laugh.

What is the best thing of all here, is although I have said I couldn’t know what has been said in private..........You on the other hand are saying things which would infer you would know.....:)
 

Slime

LE
Is it just me, or is there some truly bizarre posting going on in this thread?

I say I couldn’t possibly know what has been said in private between Russia, Syria and NATO.........

Only be ‘told’ that I had confidently said I did know!
Is ‘not being able to know’ the new ‘knowing’?

Is saying I ‘don’t and couldn’t know‘ suddenly the knew way of saying ‘I claim to know’

There is something very strange going on when posters like KGB are making the sensible posts.

Its all a bit odd, funny but odd. The best part with sagas like this is that the accuser is by definition saying they know the genuine or inside info in order that they can claim others are wrong ;)
 

Slime

LE
I think Mr Putins days of sabre-rattling brinkmanship are soon to over. He will shortly be called upon to "put up or shut up".
 
I would counter that the Brexit was carried out despite all attempts to obstruct or prevent it.
The fun cost the jobs of two prime ministers, a number of ministers I can't name, the Labour leader Jeremy "Hezbollah" Corbyn and a whole host of other politicians, and Bercow didn't get a peerage.

So to me it does read like a success for democracy and the little man. He prevailed against all odds and that can only happen in a democracy.
You should be proud of this very special British democracy and not talk it down.
Yep and look at the hoops we had to jump through, the people voted for Brexit and that should have been the end of the matter - yet you still have people like Sturgeon the Anti English racist bitch still whining and moaning about it, rather than just running Scotland properly. Hollywood needs burned to the ground and that witch needs burning at the stake. All these politicians that tried to go against the will of the people should have been sacked on the spot and pensions revoked - that would have made me happier.
 
There seems to be an agreement from the more sober OSInt bods on Twitter that the majority of equipment moved to the South West in recent weeks will remain in situ until at least the autumn.
 
Err... We didn't give it independence, then invade a few years later.
Crap whataboutery, from a crap liar.
Well, and here is where it gets a wee bit awkward for the Unionist narrative that the 26 counties "broke away" from the United Kingdom while Northern Ireland remained behind, in actual fact that is not the case.

In the Anglo-Irish Treaty the UK government ceded independence to the entire island of Ireland (including Northern Ireland) as the Irish Free State with the condition that if Northern Ireland didn't like it much it could apply to leave the Free State and rejoin the Union, which it promptly did. Any attempt by the new Irish state, and there was a limited attempt, to recover their lost territory was met with a forceful military response from the imperial government and the (re)annexation was secured. So although there wasn't a time lag of years there is certainly some grounds for saying that the UK held onto by force territory that it had previously ceded to an independent Ireland.

The reason was of course that this rather artificially created zone was carved out specifically to suit the interests of the descendants of British settlers who had seized the land from the natives and expelled many of them establishing themselves as the majority in the region and they were backed by the neighbouring empire.

Now, no situation in history is an exact corollary, there are many significant differences, but they ain't a million miles away from each other. If it's acceptable for the United Kingdom to use military force to retain the six counties of Northern Ireland against the will of the majority of the people of Ireland (which I happen to believe it was) at the behest of a settler population that didn't wish to be part of the new independent state of Ireland, there are at least grounds for considering that something similar might apply with Russia and its settlers in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Just sayin', is all.
 
Yep and look at the hoops we had to jump through, the people voted for Brexit and that should have been the end of the matter - yet you still have people like Sturgeon the Anti English racist bitch still whining and moaning about it, rather than just running Scotland properly. Hollywood needs burned to the ground and that witch needs burning at the stake. All these politicians that tried to go against the will of the people should have been sacked on the spot and pensions revoked - that would have made me happier.

If Hollywood is burned to the ground, what’ll happen with the film industry? Do you think Bollywood will make up the shortfall?
 
Nope to the first sentence.

If it were just Ukrainians, then it could probably be termed a civil war, but it isn’t just them, is it?

They’ve been led into this and directed, armed and augmented by Russia and its forces, so not a civil war.

Had Russia not meddled it would have likely been concluded within months after having escalated to maybe no more than armed ‘gangs’ having shoot outs with troops and police. But no, Russia stepped in and casualties are circa 13 - 14,000.

Some time after posting the above, I remembered that some of the ‘assistance’ from Russia were captured by the Ukrainians.

 
If it were just Ukrainians, then it could probably be termed a civil war, but it isn’t just them, is it?
If it has Ukrainians, Zenobians or Martians on both sides fighting over the makeup and/or territory of the parent state, then it's a civil war regardless of who is helping who from outside.

That's how the English language works, words meaning what they actually mean.
 
Don’t worry, even though you’ve now three times said I’ve said something that I haven’t
You've clearly stated that the NATO member state aircraft had permission to be in Syria, inferred from the lack of opposition to their presence, and have vehemently denied any of the other possibilities for that lack.

You've stated that Russians repainting their aircraft made their invited presence in Syria "illegal" without presenting any legal justification for the illegality or entertaining any of the other possibilities.

If you're not saying that the NATO aircraft had the Syrian government's permission, why did you bother sticking your unneeded oar in in the first place?
 
Top