Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

[Grant]

Well, having fun as always with talking about gawd and Tommy A and 'Rona and how the FBI was behind Jan 6.

Meanwhile, back in Mordor...

Looks like Grandfather Frost is coming to Kiev and Pooter is going to take the rest of Ukraine this winter.  He only had to wait 7 years after taking Crimea.  Very Tokugawa.  Figure if he had another 21 years in him he'd be in Berlin, but not sure if Pooter is that powerful in the dark side. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russia-ukraine-invasion/2021/12/03/98a3760e-546b-11ec-8769-2f4ecdf7a2ad_story.html

So Ivan has something like 50 Battalion Tactical Groups Deployed around Ukraine, with something like another 50 on the way, according to "US Officials and Intelligence Documents".

As tensions mount between Washington and Moscow over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops, according to U.S. officials and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post.

I'll pause here for you to start talking about how the CIA are deep state traitors. 

"It reminds of the heady days of Spurtnik and Yuri Gegarin".

Biden said he is preparing measures to raise the cost of any new invasion for Putin, who has dismissed the U.S. warnings as rumors and said Russia is not threatening anyone.

Well, that'll do it. 

Pooter just wants some Lebenstraum, or Zhiznennoye Prostranstvo.  Honestly, some prostranstvo sounds delicious.  I'd eat a sandwitch with some prostranstvo in it if they had any. 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/12/21/germany-holds-the-key-to-deterring-russian-moves-against-ukraine/

A wish list of security guarantees presented by the Kremlin to the U.S. and NATO last week amounts to a veto on further expansion of the alliance, a removal of all U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, including B-61 bombs in Germany, as well as a military withdrawal from the territories of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union.

This is no longer just about Ukraine. In effect, Russia is demanding a sphere of interest that begins at Germany’s eastern border, and the end of nuclear sharing in Europe — unacceptable proposals for the West. Even if this is merely brinkmanship intended to bring about diplomatic negotiations or a coup in Kyiv, it is stupendously risky.

Anyways, there is more public support for US involvement in Ukraine these days.  More than 7 years ago anyways.  Libs have seemingly come around because Pooter's hacker farms were doing their little propaganda psyops in 2016 and 2020.  Oh, and because L'Orange and Pooter were gud buds. 

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/half-americans-support-use-us-troops-defense-ukraine

New data from the 2021 Chicago Council Survey, conducted July 7-26, finds that Americans are more willing than ever to support Ukraine, including using US troops to defend it. For the first time since the question was included in 2014, half of Americans support the use of US troops if Russia were to invade the rest of Ukraine (50% favor, 48% oppose). This is a significant increase in support for US intervention since 2014, when only three in 10 Americans (30%) supported sending US troops to Ukraine.

Funny how being a hawk or dove isn't a partisan thing anymore. 

Anyways, I don't think Joe is sending anybody anywhere or doing anything.  I don't even think he's going to be able to set up some real economic costs.  I don't think the Germans are going to want to cut off all their gas this winter.  I don't think the French and British are in a position to do anything.  I don't think the US wants to lead on anything.  If I were Poland or the Baltics, my butt would be tight enough now to make diamonds.  So Pooter is going to take Ukraine this winter.  Happy New Year. 

Personally, I say we hit Russia with a massive air and naval campaign and basically destroy the Russian armed forces.  But that's just me. 

[TheDrake]

F Ukraine. Is it rotten what's about to happen to the people there? Yeah, it is. It was also lousy what happened to countries aligned with the Soviets that we F'd up, as well as arming Afghan freedom fighters.

It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.

So we'll all play the same tune as Crimea, wringing our hands and condemning the state of affairs in diplomatic missives, probably making some kind of token sanctions. Maybe expel a handful of the known spies, and that's about it.

[alai]

It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.

Bear in mind that the US is the pretty much the biggest reason the UN is toothless, and (if memory serves, but I really should check) the biggest veto-wielder against overwhelming SC votes against its own position.

[Grant]

and (if memory serves, but I really should check) the biggest veto-wielder against overwhelming SC votes against its own position.

LOL.  No. 

[alai]

LOL.  No.

Thank you for that detailed and helpful response and analysis!  I'll see if I refine it a little further -- if such a thing can can ever be imagined! -- by finding a record of said "overwhelming SC votes against its own position".  Let's say 14-1 ones, for the sake of argument.

Of course, much of the famous toothlessness of the UN relates to measures adopted by the General Assembly, which of course pretty much necessarily get no-one anywhere.  Which is also very much how the US likes it.

[TheDeamon]

F Ukraine. Is it rotten what's about to happen to the people there? Yeah, it is. It was also lousy what happened to countries aligned with the Soviets that we F'd up, as well as arming Afghan freedom fighters.

It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.

So we'll all play the same tune as Crimea, wringing our hands and condemning the state of affairs in diplomatic missives, probably making some kind of token sanctions. Maybe expel a handful of the known spies, and that's about it.

Safe bet it won't be "just" Ukraine in the crosshairs of anything that happens this spring. Taiwan will be on the menu as well.

China shut down all of the ADS-B and AIS beacon receivers that were sharing information to the world at large. So we no longer have visibility of either commercial Air Traffic or commercial shipping traffic within China's territorial limits.

I wonder why China might decide they don't want people to be paying attention to what they're having their "domestic" aircraft and cargo ships are doing. Certainly wouldn't have anything to do with past experiments with using them for military purposes.

At least so long as China has a thumb on the scale, it is unlikely anything will happen until after they have a chance to attempt a propoganda blitz at the 2022 Winter GenocideOlympic Games. Just so everyone can get a good understanding of how wonderful things will be for the Taiwanese once under the boot of the Communist Party.

Of course, based on (mostly anecdotal) reporting that is coming out of China through unoffical leakages through their great firewall. I'm becoming less certain that the Communist Party will be able to hold things together that long. It might force them to move up the time table.

Hard to convince their own people that their economic problems are a consequence of economic sanctions due to Taiwan if it is plainly obvious to all of them that the economy had crapped out before the war started.

[TheDeamon]

LOL.  No.

Thank you for that detailed and helpful response and analysis!  I'll see if I refine it a little further -- if such a thing can can ever be imagined! -- by finding a record of said "overwhelming SC votes against its own position".  Let's say 14-1 ones, for the sake of argument.

Of course, much of the famous toothlessness of the UN relates to measures adopted by the General Assembly, which of course pretty much necessarily get no-one anywhere.  Which is also very much how the US likes it.

It is further complicated by a tendency of the Security Council to generally refrain from putting things up for a vote if they know it'll get vetoed. Their actually voting on a resolution in such a case is often a signal in and of itself. (And generally political for obvious reasons)

[alai]

It is further complicated by a tendency of the Security Council to generally refrain from putting things up for a vote if they know it'll get vetoed. Their actually voting on a resolution in such a case is often a signal in and of itself. (And generally political for obvious reasons)

Right.  I suspect that's why Wikipedia doesn't have a Big Table(TM) of tabulated numbers of votes -- hey, I didn't say I was doing deep research on the topic! -- even when there has been been a formal use of the veto (as opposed to a Permanent Member simply warning off the SC from tabling a measure by threatened use).

[TheDeamon]

https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick

To the rescue.

Plugging it into LibreOffice Calc and doing some sorting..

210 resolutions/drafts have seen use of a Security Council Veto.

Sometimes they are being vetoed by as many as 3 permanent members at the same time. (Of which I see 13 occasions that happened, with the 3 parties being the US, UK, and France)
Russia and China have jointly vetoed 13 resolutions/drafts.
The UK and US have jointly vetoed 9 resolutions/drafts.
France and the UK have jointly vetoed 2 resolutions/drafts.

France has vetoed 1 resolution/draft as the only party to use a veto.
China has vetoed 3 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The UK has vetoed 5 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The USSR vetoed 90 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a Veto.
Russia has vetoed 13 resolution/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The United States vetoed 60 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a Veto.
 
Edit: Do note, the link doesn't report what the vote outcomes were, it just reports use of the veto. Although it does seem to link to the question at hand, so those records could probably be found quickly enough, just more work than I care to do.

[TheDeamon]

More fun with that earlier data set. In the past 10 years, the US has vetoed 4 UN security council resolutions/drafts, out of 25 resolutions/drafts to be vetoed.
10 were vetoed by Russia, and the were jointly vetoed by Russia and China.

The topic of 3 of the 4 US vetoes? "Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question"(there are 12 other UN security council resolutions going back to 1974 which contain "Palestinian" in the description which also saw US veto power being used, with no other permanent member joining the US; making for a total of at least 15 US vetoes in the UNSC related to Israel) Number 4 was "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks"

As to the fourth one, here's what Human Rights Watch had to say about it:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/04/despite-us-veto-desperate-isis-suspects-and-families-remain-risk

There is good news and bad news from the Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council vote on a dangerously flawed draft resolution on so-called “foreign terrorist fighters,” the council’s catch-all phrase for members and affiliates of groups like the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS). The good news is that the United States vetoed the draft, rightly dismissing it as “worse than no resolution at all.”

The bad news is that all other 14 Security Council members voted “Yes”—not one was sufficiently embarrassed to abstain—though the resolution would have undermined the rights of desperate children and women locked inside squalid camps for ISIS families, the rights of terrorism suspects to appear before a judge, and the U.N.’s own Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Given that wanton disregard, the risk remains that some of the more troubling provisions in this draft may yet find their way into a future counterterrorism resolution.

[alai]

Edit: Do note, the link doesn't report what the vote outcomes were, it just reports use of the veto. Although it does seem to link to the question at hand, so those records could probably be found quickly enough, just more work than I care to do.

Yeah, as I said it was the vote I was looking for -- the Other Big Table that wikipedia does have already gave me that data -- sorry, if I'd linked it I could have spared you some spreadsheet pain.  (Or denied you spreadsheet pleasure?)  They're linked in that those at least preclude the maximally overwhelming case (the 14-1 one), but three Powers could still in theory be vetoing a 12-3 vote, which is overwhelming-ish.  Or a singleton veto might be overriding a much narrower one.

The topic of 3 of the 4 US vetoes? "Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question"(there are 12 other UN security council resolutions going back to 1974 which contain "Palestinian" in the description which also saw US veto power being used, with no other permanent member joining the US; making for a total of at least 15 US vetoes in the UNSC related to Israel) Number 4 was "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks"

Yup, that was pretty much my assumption.  Almost surprised it's that low!  The latest one, the "US and Israel thinks Israel's capital is outside where standing UN resolutions say Israel's borders are" was indeed a 14-1 vote.  And it actually was recorded as a full vote, so if that's not the usual procedure, perhaps a case of the UN being annoyeder than usual about it.

As to the fourth one, here's what Human Rights Watch had to say about it:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/04/despite-us-veto-desperate-isis-suspects-and-families-remain-risk

There is good news and bad news from the Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council vote on a dangerously flawed draft resolution on so-called “foreign terrorist fighters,” the council’s catch-all phrase for members and affiliates of groups like the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS). The good news is that the United States vetoed the draft, rightly dismissing it as “worse than no resolution at all.”

The bad news is that all other 14 Security Council members voted “Yes”—not one was sufficiently embarrassed to abstain—though the resolution would have undermined the rights of desperate children and women locked inside squalid camps for ISIS families, the rights of terrorism suspects to appear before a judge, and the U.N.’s own Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Given that wanton disregard, the risk remains that some of the more troubling provisions in this draft may yet find their way into a future counterterrorism resolution.

I'm not familiar with that one, and might have to google it more extensively when I'm a little more awake -- for example, it'd be handy to have the full statement from the US ambassador, and not just a sentence fragment with a confusing lack of context.  But my hot take is that HRW is upset at the draft resolution violating the rights of ISIL suspects, and the US was upset that it wasn't violating them more, and vetoed out out annoyance at the Europeans, and in the hopes of a do-over in the form of a more extensive resolution.  i.e., one that would have violated those rights yet more enthusiastically.

[TheDeamon]

Oddly, in this case, it seems the US wasn't trying to be terrible. At least by the standard most people would try to apply.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-un-militants/u-s-isolated-as-it-vetoes-u-n-resolution-on-foreign-militants-idUKKBN25R2MU

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, said the draft text aiming to reinforce international action on counterterrorism “was worse than no resolution at all.”

“It fails to even include reference to the crucial first step – repatriation to countries of origin or nationality,” she said. “The United States will not participate in such a cynical and willfully oblivious farce.”

...

The United States wants foreign militants sent home and either prosecuted or rehabilitated there. European states, however, have been reluctant to try their nationals at home, citing difficulty in collecting evidence, concerns about a public backlash and the risk of fresh attacks on European soil.

[TheDeamon]

China has shut down nearly all "heavy polluting industry" until March 16th of this year in order to ensure blue skies for the Olympic(ending on Feb 20th) and Paralympic Games(ending March 15th) although officially the plants are shut down for "maintenance, upgrades, and retooling" until then. Of course, China did do something comparable back in 2008, although I don't recall it being a 3+ month long shut-down for the Summer Olympics.

This also has the side effect of creating a lot of "noise" for the international intelligence community, as this opens the doors to "unusual activity" at just about every relevant factory site, and at the major sea ports as well as existing inventories and stockpiles draw down.

Could be "nothing to see here" in a legitimate sense, or it could very much be something to see. I guess we'll find out in 4 months.

But in the meantime, China's Communist Party has something they can hide their economic problems behind. People aren't out of work because the economy is falling apart. They're on furlough while they prepare "a new wave of innovation" in their manufacturing industry(upgraded plants) while they wow the world with the Olympic Games. 

[alai]

Actually the 2008 restrictions were even longer -- they started in November 2007.  https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2016/02/12/the-2008-beijing-olympic-games-spillover-effects-on-air-quality-and-health/  At exactly what point, if any, they became complete shutdowns I dunno.  Likewise I'm unclear about the nature of this one -- what's your source?

Some of this "unusual activity" might also be relocation of production, or refitting (whether for air-quality reasons or wildly otherwise).  Plus of course switching to Covid-22 mass production, that'll clog up a few Gantt charts.

[alai]

Oddly, in this case, it seems the US wasn't trying to be terrible. At least by the standard most people would try to apply.

Pace Tolstoy, there are so many different kinds of terrible available!  I meant to look into this somewhat more, but laziness, inertia and distractedness intervened, as is often the case.

I did find the ambassador's full statement, which is both a worthless exercise, and very much trying to be terrible.  It was all North Korea-style bluster and kissing up to then (then) Eternal President and (then) Eternal Foggy Bottomer (unless in the event of becoming future Dear President in turn).  I'm still left with the impression that the Former Regime's beef is "doesn't go far enough", and the HRW's is "goes too far!", and no useful detail from either.

There is certainly some justice in the criticism of the position of the Europeans.  To take the UK in particular, it's shown zero willingness to repatriate its own citizens abroad suspected of ISIL involvement:  indeed, its preferred approach has been to try to just deprive them of citizenship.  This is cynical enough for people with dual citizenship where their association is primarily with the UK, extremely questionable (and with a strong whiff of racism) where it happens on the basis of there being another citizenship they're "entitled to apply for", and brazenly illegal where it's simply rendering someone stateless on no pretext whatsoever.

Mind you, the US seems plenty guilty of the similar impulse not to want to put its own suspects through the normal civilian criminal justice system.  It just happens to have more access to "in-theatre" assassination, military installations (maintained over the protests of their "host" country or otherwise) to stash them in out of reach of the justice system, etc as alternative means.

[Grant]

"Grandpa, what did you do during the outbreak of World War Three?" 

"Well, I was *censored*posting about the culture war, Democrats vs Republicans, down in Louisiana". 

Hope everyone is enjoying their time in the new year.  The sparrow has come and given glad tidings of great crops and all that.  Still fighting 'Rona and Libs and Progs and White Christian Nationalist Trumpists and those pesky Warmongering Neocons.

So US Intel says Putin has decided to invade and it's coming within the week.  Embassy in Kiev has been moved to Lviv.  It's amazing how every time there is a crisis in China or Eastern Europe, the names of things change.  Kiev becomes Kyiv and Beijing is Peking. I don't know. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/11/world/europe/president-biden-is-holding-a-call-with-nato-and-eu-leaders-to-discuss-russia-and-ukraine.html

Oh, I know what you're thinking.  When has the last time the CIA or NSA has gotten anything right?  I mean, we're all intelligence experts here.  Just ask all the people who still believe Assad had nothing to do with dropping sarin on women and children.  It was all an Islamist plot.  Thank gawd Russia Times is here to clear things up. 

President Joe made a great speech.  For a dude 79 years old.  Just don't expect anything Clint Eastwood or Morgan Freeman calibre.  President Joe continues to be great at his only major job.  Not being His Lord Highness The Defender of Legitimate Civil Discourse.  Lotsa talk about diplomacy and all that.  The good news is that President Joe has heard his people's cry, "F Ukraine.  It's sad and horrible, but the United States armed the Mujhas and *censored*ed up Lithuania".   Never mind doing anything that would actually stop a war, like putting a single US Brigade into Ukraine.  *censored*, that would be Imperialism.  Can't have that.  Can't actually stop wars.  Whatever he is, he's still 1000% times better than Germany, sucking on that sweet Russian gas nozzle.  I mean, *censored*, it's winter time in Germany right now.  You want to go without heat? 

I suppose we'll find out soon if the evil warmongers in the CIA and NSA are right or not. 

My recommendation to crush the Russians with a sustained air campaign has been ignored and is kinda impossible at this point really.  The majority of the carriers in the Atlantic are down for maintenance.  Most of the US Navy is in the Pacific right now watching China.  Did a neat little Taiwan head fake there.  The only thing we have have on that side is the Truman, which is in the Med right now.  Not really keen on trying to get into the Black Sea with a single carrier group.  Even if Turkey is playing ball.  The Bush, Stennis, and Washington are all sitting up in Norfok, with the Ford which is getting geared up.  But you would need a minimum of 4 carrier air groups to survive going into the Barents Sea to threaten Murmansk. 

At this point the best move would be to move the 48 FW from England to someplace in Romania or Poland, along with all the necessary support units.  If the Germans would actually allow something like that.  Bless those glorious peacekeepers.  If you can't blow the *censored* out of the Rodina then you may as well give the Ukrainians some air cover. 

But that won't happen either.  Gotta give em all that diplomacy.  Thick hot juicy diplomacy.  Kissinger makes me moist. 

I've heard talk about how Pooter won't do it because of the cost in causalities and diplomatic sanctions.  People talking about Ukraine bleeding Russia dry.  It's not going to happen.  Russia can flatten Ukraine in a matter of days and walk into Kiev.  I mean, there will be plenty of dead Ukrainians.  But not a bunch of dead Russians.  The Russians simply have too much air and artillery power. On top of this, the Ukrainians know they're going to lose.  They're not going to fight to the death when they can flee.  The same thing that happened to Afghanistan is going to happen to Ukraine.  They feel the same way.  No help.  No support.  No chance.  Abandoned.  They have heard the voice of the people.  "F Ukraine.  Shame the United States made the UN toothless with all those vetos.  And armed Mujas.  It's all their fault". 

Pooter might be in Kiev this weekend.  It's not going to take long.  Happy Den'zashchitnika Otechestva. 

[TheDeamon]

Turkey changed its name in December as well. 

[Fenring]

There are conflicting reports coming in all the time. Within the last 24 hours I read headlines saying the following sort of thing:

-"Russian attack immiminent"
-"Putin claims genocide happened in Ukraine"
-"Russian troops begin backing away from Ukraine border, ending training maneuvers"
-"Putin laughs at the West for overreacting"
-"Putin may be planning his assault any time now"

Anything I read is just clickbait nonsense. Until I hear that Russia has outright invaded the rest is a nothingburger. Part of me wonders whether this sort of thing is planned in order to sell copy both in Russia and over here. Just keep everyone on their toes and a bit scared/excited.

[cherrypoptart]

And part of me wonders if this is all done to make a lot of money with market manipulation. Anyone who knew for sure that this was all just posturing could make a nice bundle of change in the stock and crypto markets. Who would know for sure? Russians. Always follow the money.

Well I shouldn't say it's all done to make money. The Russians play their games on many levels. Getting Ukraine to put it's NATO membership ambitions on hold was surely a big part of it, but if they could make a lot of money at the same time they wouldn't turn their noses up at the opportunity.

[TheDeamon]

At least so long as China has a thumb on the scale, it is unlikely anything will happen until after they have a chance to attempt a propoganda blitz at the 2022 Winter GenocideOlympic Games. Just so everyone can get a good understanding of how wonderful things will be for the Taiwanese once under the boot of the Communist Party.

So US Intel says Putin has decided to invade and it's coming within the week.  Embassy in Kiev has been moved to Lviv.  It's amazing how every time there is a crisis in China or Eastern Europe, the names of things change.  Kiev becomes Kyiv and Beijing is Peking. I don't know. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/11/world/europe/president-biden-is-holding-a-call-with-nato-and-eu-leaders-to-discuss-russia-and-ukraine.html

Posted on 15 Feb, 7 days later would be 22 Feb, just after the Winter Olympics conclude on the 20th in Beijing. 

Of course, the Paralympics might still factor in, although Russia didn't seem to care in 2014. If they do this time(because of China), we have another month to go just yet. Those games conclude on the 15th of March.

[TheDrake]

There are conflicting reports coming in all the time. Within the last 24 hours I read headlines saying the following sort of thing:

-"Russian attack immiminent"
-"Putin claims genocide happened in Ukraine"
-"Russian troops begin backing away from Ukraine border, ending training maneuvers"
-"Putin laughs at the West for overreacting"
-"Putin may be planning his assault any time now"

Anything I read is just clickbait nonsense. Until I hear that Russia has outright invaded the rest is a nothingburger. Part of me wonders whether this sort of thing is planned in order to sell copy both in Russia and over here. Just keep everyone on their toes and a bit scared/excited.

Remember when the world press said a US invasion of Iraq was imminent and then it happened?

Give one other good reason to mass a couple hundred thousand men along the entire border of a nation?

The only question left is when, not if.

[NobleHunter]

Because it will get you something that you can't get without massing a couple hundred thousand troops.

[TheDrake]

Because it will get you something that you can't get without massing a couple hundred thousand troops.

Yeah, more square miles for your country. Name one time that many armed men went to a border and then tucked in home without killing anybody.

[LetterRip]

TheDrake,

it can be used for negotiation - a strong imminent threat works well for that.

I think the only that that will prevent Putin from invading, if anything will, is that we've armed the Ukraine with a lot of anti-tank missiles and the Biden administration has sent advisors for training them on their usage, and for assessing additional military equipment needs.   While Russia isn't as loss adverse as the US is, it might be sufficient to change Putin's calculus.

[TheDeamon]

Because it will get you something that you can't get without massing a couple hundred thousand troops.

Yeah, more square miles for your country. Name one time that many armed men went to a border and then tucked in home without killing anybody.

Can't give one off-hand, but have hazy memories of it happening a few times in the 19th Century. So long as the troops were on a "domestic" border.

US troops massed on the border of Iraq were obviously not on a domestic border of the US.

[TheDrake]

Because it will get you something that you can't get without massing a couple hundred thousand troops.

Yeah, more square miles for your country. Name one time that many armed men went to a border and then tucked in home without killing anybody.

Can't give one off-hand, but have hazy memories of it happening a few times in the 19th Century. So long as the troops were on a "domestic" border.

US troops massed on the border of Iraq were obviously not on a domestic border of the US.

Yeah, sometimes the country involved doesn't invade. Because the threat is enough to get someone to cave to their demands, usually.

Let's note that the Russian troops are not in their domestic border entirely. A big chunk of them are in Belarus. Oh, and the previously invaded Crimea.

I don't see a scenario where they mass the troops, Putin gets nothing to show for it, and brings them home.

[Grant]

I think the only that that will prevent Putin from invading, if anything will, is that we've armed the Ukraine with a lot of anti-tank missiles and the Biden administration has sent advisors for training them on their usage, and for assessing additional military equipment needs.   While Russia isn't as loss adverse as the US is, it might be sufficient to change Putin's calculus.

I think this is a good point, and if anything is or would deter an invasion from what is already in place, it would be losses sustained from Javelin missiles sold to Ukraine after His Tiny Grabbyness extorted them for dirt on non-existent servers.  But I think that calculus was already in place and you don't mass 70% of your army and air forces against a single country without having thought it through or it's all just a bluff.  Russian massive superiority in air power and indirect fires is going to limit the damage that the Ukrainians can manage.  Major Ukrainian formations are going to be vaporized before T-80s or 90s get within range of any Javelins.  So you're talking about small independent teams or units that survive the slaughter going it alone on foot in a hole going against massive Russian formations.  Kinda suicide.  It's been done in the east before though so it could happen. 

What the Ukrainians need is air support from NATO.  Kudos to the UK for apparently having the balls to send some of their EW birds up over Ukraine. 

At this point the best move would be to move the 48 FW from England to someplace in Romania or Poland, along with all the necessary support units.  If the Germans would actually allow something like that.  Bless those glorious peacekeepers.  If you can't blow the *censored* out of the Rodina then you may as well give the Ukrainians some air cover.

I feel kinda stupid now that I've found out that they've already moved elements of the 48 FW from Lakenheath to Poland and the F-16s in Germany to Romania.  This is a no *censored* ballsy move on Biden.  If the USAF and RAF contest air superiority over Ukraine, the Russians are going to have the devil of a time slogging through the Ukrainians.  I know this hasn't gotten a bunch of press outside of the Airforce Times, but if anything deters Pooter it's going to be the idea of having to tangle with the USAF over Ukraine.  It's going to turn his opportunity of a quick "shock and awe", "smash and grab", "fait accomplit" strategy into garbage.  But to make it real they need to deploy the F-35s too.  F-15s and F-16s are designs from 40 years ago. 

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure the F-35 adds much in this particular role as a deterrent. Is any Russian general going to look at F-15s and F-16s and say, well as long as they don't send the F-35 we're in good shape?

[Grant]

I'm not sure the F-35 adds much in this particular role as a deterrent. Is any Russian general going to look at F-15s and F-16s and say, well as long as they don't send the F-35 we're in good shape?

Oh yeah. 

Su-35s, Su-27s, Mig-29s, even the old Mig-31s with the new hypersonic AAMs, can all tangle horns with F-15s and F-16s.  Especially when you're talking about 300 vs 30.  The F-35s are a whole different ballgame and change everything.  Trust me.  As soon as F-35s land in Poland, Pooter will be complaining about NATO aggression and plans to attack Russia again. 

F-22s from Virginia would be even nicer, but I don't think Biden will do that.  It was probably all Austin could manage to send F-15s and 16s. 

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure the F-35 adds much in this particular role as a deterrent. Is any Russian general going to look at F-15s and F-16s and say, well as long as they don't send the F-35 we're in good shape?

Oh yeah. 

Su-35s, Su-27s, Mig-29s, even the old Mig-31s with the new hypersonic AAMs, can all tangle horns with F-15s and F-16s.  Especially when you're talking about 300 vs 30.  The F-35s are a whole different ballgame and change everything.  Trust me.  As soon as F-35s land in Poland, Pooter will be complaining about NATO aggression and plans to attack Russia again. 

F-22s from Virginia would be even nicer, but I don't think Biden will do that.  It was probably all Austin could manage to send F-15s and 16s.

I think you've already lost the plot if we're down to kill ratios. Yes, the 35 is obviously superior. But I can't imagine it making a difference in preventing a conflict, only in the effectiveness of winning it. We had air superiority in Iraq from the first hour, how'd that go in the long run?

[Grant]

I think you've already lost the plot if we're down to kill ratios. Yes, the 35 is obviously superior. But I can't imagine it making a difference in preventing a conflict, only in the effectiveness of winning it. We had air superiority in Iraq from the first hour, how'd that go in the long run?

 

It went really well in the long run.  Imagine how much worse it would have been if we hadn't had air superiority during all that time.  I don't think anybody has ever blamed our problems in Iraq on a lack of air power.  Jeez. 

The reason F-35s add to deterrence is the threat they pose and the effectiveness it presents.  F-15s and F-16s can make it more costly for Pooter.  But the more costly you can make it, the better the deterrence, correct?  It's like poker.  Adding F-15s and F-16 is a raise.  But two squadrons of F-35s is an even bigger raise.  A much bigger raise.  The F-15s and F-16s will make it more costly but they're still just a speed bump because they will be attrited eventually and the Russians will have air supremacy and a larger more mobile army with greater indirect fire capability. 

On the other hand, having F-35s is the difference between the Russians having to fight just a pack of Wolverines from Calumet, Colorado, and having to fight a squad of Predators from Yuatja Prime.  The cost goes up immensely, especially if the Russians can never establish air superiority and bring to bear their attack aircraft to pound the larger Ukrainian dug in units, meaning the Russians will have to slog through them.  It changes the math from quick victory to costly protracted ground attack for the Russians.  This increases the deterrence. 

Deterrence = threat.  F-35 threat > threat from F-15s and 16s.  Deterrence F-35 > Deterrence F-15/16s. 

[rightleft22]

“When a war breaks out, people say: 'It's too stupid, it can't last long. ' But though a war may be 'too stupid,' that doesn't prevent its lasting.” -Albert Camus

“But what I would like to know," says Albert, "is whether there would not have
been a war if the Kaiser had said No."

"I'm sure there would," I interject, "he was against it from the first."

"Well, if not him alone, then perhaps if twenty or thirty people in the world had said No."

"That's probable," I agree, "but they damned well said Yes."

"It's queer, when one thinks about it," goes on Kropp, "we are here to protect our fatherland. And the French are over there to protect their fatherland. Now who's in the right?"

"Perhaps both," say I without believing it.

"Yes, well now," pursues Albert, and I see that he means to drive me into a corner, "but our professors and parsons and newspapers say that we are the only ones that are right, and let's hope so;--but the French professors and parsons and newspapers say that the right is on their side, now what about that?"

"That I don't know," I say, "but whichever way it is there's war all the same and every month more countries coming in."

Tjaden reappears. He is still quite excited and again joins the conversation, wondering just how a war gets started.

"Mostly by one country badly offending another," answers Albert with a slight air of superiority.

Then Tjaden pretends to be obtuse. "A country? I don't follow. A mountain in Germany cannot offend a mountain in France. Or a river, or a wood, or a field of wheat."

"Are you really as stupid as that, or are you just pulling my leg?" growls Kropp, "I don't mean that at all. One people offends the other--"

"Then I haven't any business here at all," replies Tjaden, "I don't feel myself offended."

"Well, let me tell you," says Albert sourly, "it doesn't apply to tramps like you."

"Then I can be going home right away," retorts Tjaden, and we all laugh, "Ach, man! he means the people as a whole, the State--" exclaims Mller.

"State, State"--Tjaden snaps his fingers contemptuously, "Gendarmes, police, taxes, that's your State;--if that's what you are talking about, no, thank you."

"That's right," says Kat, "you've said something for once, Tjaden. State and home-country, there's a big difference."

"But they go together," insists Kropp, "without the State there wouldn't be any home-country."

"True, but just you consider, almost all of us are simple folk. And in France, too, the majority of men are labourers, workmen, or poor clerks. Now just why would a French blacksmith or a French shoemaker want to attack us? No, it is merely the rulers. I had never seen a Frenchman before I came here, and it will be just the same with the majority of Frenchmen as regards us. They weren't asked about it any more than we were."

"Then what exactly is the war for?" asks Tjaden.

Kat shrugs his shoulders. "There must be some people to whom the war is useful."

"Well, I'm not one of them," grins Tjaden.

"Not you, nor anybody else here."

"Who are they then?" persists Tjaden.

"It isn't any use to the Kaiser either. He has everything he can want already."

"I'm not so sure about that," contradicts Kat, "he has not had a war up till now. And every full-grown emperor requires at least one war, otherwise he would not become famous. You look in your school books."

"And generals too," adds Detering, "they become famous through war."

"Even more famous than emperors," adds Kat.

"There are other people back behind there who profit by the war, that's certain," growls Detering.

"I think it is more of a kind of fever," says Albert. "No one in particular wants it, and then all at once there it is. We didn't want the war, the others say the same thing--and yet half the world is in it all the same.”

― Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front

“Anyone who thinks must think of the next war as they would of suicide.”  - Roosevelt

[LetterRip]

F-15s and F-16s are designs from 40 years ago.

F-15 and F-16 with modern upgrades are pretty formidable.  Stealth isn't that important, and the larger load outs probably are more important.  Also maintenance lower and thus tempo are probably much higher with the older systems.

[LetterRip]

Grant, see this analysis of F-15 vs the Russian SU-35

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/who-dominates-air-russias-su-35-vs-americas-f-15-eagle-198914

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-15-eagle-vs-russias-su-35-fighter-who-wins-13815

[Grant]

Grant, see this analysis of F-15 vs the Russian SU-35

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/who-dominates-air-russias-su-35-vs-americas-f-15-eagle-198914

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-15-eagle-vs-russias-su-35-fighter-who-wins-13815

I mean, yeah.  I agree with everything there.  They're comparable platforms where the best pilot would probably win. 

He concluded that regardless of their differences, the two aircraft were more or less closely matched. As a result, supporting assets and pilot skill are more likely to determine the outcomes of an engagement between the two rather than any technological gap.

Just like I said: "Su-35s, Su-27s, Mig-29s, even the old Mig-31s with the new hypersonic AAMs, can all tangle horns with F-15s and F-16s."

But like I also said, the reason I give the advantage to Russia here is because they have a big numerical advantage.  Two squadrons of F-15s and a single squadron of F-16s can't stand up to 3 squadrons of Su-35s, 3 squadrons of Su-27s, and 2 squadrons of M-29s, all at once.  They're simply going to be overwhelmed.  I don't expect the Russians to mass all their fighters like that on a single strike, but attrition will take it's toll. 

Meanwhile, an F-35 can bushwack Russian fighter formations in the air or on the ground and is a real force multiplier. 

I'm not trying to take anything away from F-15s and F-16s.  Particularly F-16s in a dogfight.  They're outrageous.  But F-35s are just better. 

[Grant]

F-15s and F-16s are designs from 40 years ago.

F-15 and F-16 with modern upgrades are pretty formidable.  Stealth isn't that important, and the larger load outs probably are more important.  Also maintenance lower and thus tempo are probably much higher with the older systems.

Yeah.  Su-27s and Mig-29s are 40 years old too.  But they're also upgraded and there are more of them. 

[TheDrake]

I think you've already lost the plot if we're down to kill ratios. Yes, the 35 is obviously superior. But I can't imagine it making a difference in preventing a conflict, only in the effectiveness of winning it. We had air superiority in Iraq from the first hour, how'd that go in the long run?

 

It went really well in the long run.  Imagine how much worse it would have been if we hadn't had air superiority during all that time.  I don't think anybody has ever blamed our problems in Iraq on a lack of air power.  Jeez. 

The reason F-35s add to deterrence is the threat they pose and the effectiveness it presents.  F-15s and F-16s can make it more costly for Pooter.  But the more costly you can make it, the better the deterrence, correct?  It's like poker.  Adding F-15s and F-16 is a raise.  But two squadrons of F-35s is an even bigger raise.  A much bigger raise.  The F-15s and F-16s will make it more costly but they're still just a speed bump because they will be attrited eventually and the Russians will have air supremacy and a larger more mobile army with greater indirect fire capability. 

On the other hand, having F-35s is the difference between the Russians having to fight just a pack of Wolverines from Calumet, Colorado, and having to fight a squad of Predators from Yuatja Prime.  The cost goes up immensely, especially if the Russians can never establish air superiority and bring to bear their attack aircraft to pound the larger Ukrainian dug in units, meaning the Russians will have to slog through them.  It changes the math from quick victory to costly protracted ground attack for the Russians.  This increases the deterrence. 

Deterrence = threat.  F-35 threat > threat from F-15s and 16s.  Deterrence F-35 > Deterrence F-15/16s.

Sure, I'll grant you that. I'm just saying that it's deterrence level 87% versus 89%, not a game changer. The real deterrence is that you're going to be shooting it out with NATO in any form. Because if the 35's are needed two weeks in, they'll get moved over there. We made it pretty clear to the Russians via our Afghan war that we can launch planes from the Continental United States and refuel them in midair and bomb a country on the other side of the earth.

A better argument might be that using the 35's will save NATO pilots lives. But it isn't going to determine whether Putin goes in or not. There's also no commitment to put any air assets over Ukraine, is there? My understanding is that they are in Poland to defend Poland. Or did somebody declare a no-fly zone when I wasn't looking?

[Grant]

Sure, I'll grant you that. I'm just saying that it's deterrence level 87% versus 89%, not a game changer. The real deterrence is that you're going to be shooting it out with NATO in any form.

See, we disagree here.  It's a difference of 20% and 80%. 

See, if you're Pooter, and you are now thinking about dealing with two squadrons of F-15s and a squadron of F-16s, this is how the math goes:

"If NATO commits, and that's not given, but if they do commit, then the price of having to deal with the F-15s and F-16s will be about 40-60 of my own fighters and a delay in the ground offensive of about two to seven days.  That's more pain, but not significantly.  On the upside, I get to defeat NATO and embarrass them.  This is lagniappe for me."

vs the F-35 scenario:

"If NATO commits, and that's not given, but if they do, then the price of having to deal with two squadrons of F-15s, two squadrons of F-35s, and a single squadron of F-16s, might be my entire air forces deployed in the area.  We're talking 120 of my own fights, 100 of my attack aircraft, plus helicopters.  The ground attack would be delayed indefinitely or if I kick off at the jump, then my ground casualties will be multiplied anywhere from 2 to 10 times what it would have been previously.   So if I was hoping to lose only 1000 Russian soldiers, now I could lose 2000 to 10,000.  Easy.  And I lose to NATO and get embarrassed." 

See, the risk involved is much larger under the F-35 scenario because it just becomes too hard to tell what exactly could happen.  Maybe the Russians win, but the cost is so much higher.  Or maybe the Russians are bogged down in a stalemate and can't win quickly, giving the advantage to NATO.  That's an outright loss.  Can't risk it.  The deterrence produced by the F-35s really is that much bigger because they are that much more capable and you're cutting down on the numbers advantage.  *censored*, put two to three squadrons of F-22s in Poland or Romania and it's not even a gamble anymore, but suicide. 

Because if the 35's are needed two weeks in, they'll get moved over there.

The war could be over in 4 to 7 days, even against F-15s and F-16s where the Russians don't dare to hit their bases.  They're simply going to be attrited.  There won't be two weeks.  Ivan will need only 2-3 days of air superiority to soften up the Ukrainian ground formations in order to steamroll them with a massive ground attack.  We're talking ass loads of SU-33s and Su-25s, plus russian ground attack choppers like Hinds and Havocs and whatever new crap they have come up with.  NATO isn't going to move more assets and fighters into the area if the battle has basically been lost.  They may try and reconsolidate a defense on the western side of the Dnieper, but all the Russians have to do is keep driving west to Poland and Moldova. 

We made it pretty clear to the Russians via our Afghan war that we can launch planes from the Continental United States and refuel them in midair and bomb a country on the other side of the earth.

Nobody wants to send B-52s or B-1s or even B-2s against the Russian Air Force, over Russia, without escorts.  Fighting the Russians is different than fighting the Afghans because the Afghans never had a damn air force or air defense network like Ivan has.  Plus it would widen the theatre of war without a clear path to victory.  The only way using those forces over Ukraine works if if you can tie up the Russian Air Force with our own fighters. 

There's also no commitment to put any air assets over Ukraine, is there? My understanding is that they are in Poland to defend Poland. Or did somebody declare a no-fly zone when I wasn't looking?

No.  This is a good point, but it has to be something that keeps Pooter up at night.  There is your deterrence.  Your risk just increased.  The RAF is already flying surveillance with RC-135s over Ukraine, and the USAF has been flying drones and RC-135 missions into the Black Sea. 

[Grant]

Biden Press Conference:

"And do you have any indication about wether President Putin has made the decision about wether to invade?  Do you feel confident that he has made that decision already?

"As of this moment I'm convinced that he's made the decision.  We have reason to believe that."

....

"To be clear, you are convinced that President Putin is going to invade Ukraine. Is that what you said just a few minutes ago?"

"Yes I did. Yes."

"What reason do you have to believe that he has considering that option at all?"

"We have a significant intelligence capability.  Thank you very much." 


That damn CIA and NSA again.  When are they every going to learn? 

Pretty bold putting it all on the table.  After all, the Russian state controlled media and Kremlin puppets are saying the exact opposite.  I mean, who to believe?  THERE ARE JUST SO MANY CONFLICTING REPORTS.  JUST YESTERDAY THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAID THAT HE WON THE ELECTION.  I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE!  RUSSIA SAYS THEY ARE PULLING TROOPS BACK.  PUTIN LAUGHS AT WESTERN OVERREACTION TO 150,000 TROOPS ON BORDER.  UKRAINIANS ARE COMMITING GENOCIDE AGAINST RUSSIANS!  PHARMA COMPANIES ARE HIDING IVERMECTIN CURES COVID!  THE MOON LANDING IS FAKE!  ALIENS!  ISRAELI SPACE LASERS! 

I mean, it's obviously just to sell more magazines. 


So Ivan's plan was supposed to be:

1. Cyberattack

2. Provocation

3. False Flag

4. SOF/Spetznaz disruption

5. Air campaign to knock out Ukrainian AF and soften major Ukrainian ground formations

6. Ground attack in two main axis:  Both banks of the Dnieper from Belarus to Kiev.  Belgorod to Karkiv to Dnipro.  Feint on Odessa.  Cut off Ukrainian troops in Donetsk Oblast. 

 
So we've so far already seen 1, 2, and 3.  The cyber attacks were kinda pathetic.  I expected more.  The provocation bombardments are as expected.  If the genocide bit is the false flag, I expected more there as well.  Maybe they're still going to pull out some kind of weird Potemkin village thing.


Surprised they are not doing more given that whatever they have promised already in hopes of deterrence (sanctions, economic and diplomatic, etc) are obviously not working.  It's so easy.  Just commit.  This isn't Hungary 1956.  This isn't Czechoslovakia 1968. 

[Grant]

So last night (early morning in Kiev) Russian backed separatists started evacuating civilians in the Donbass Oblast to Russia. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/east-ukraine-shelling-russian-invasion-fears-putin-pretext-rcna16773

Artillery attacks against Ukrainian targets seem to be increasing.  Not sure if it is still for the purpose of provoking a response or actually trying to soften positions.  I don't think the full press is on yet. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-news-shelling-donbas-buildup-latest-us-invasion-pretext-blinken-lavrov/

The Russians are conducting their annual strategic nuclear drill.  Neat timing. 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-europe-russia-vladimir-putin-91749e368bb54bdc42cd747496a21a2f

Russian female skater team rough times

https://apnews.com/article/winter-olympics-figure-skating-russian-future-e78712d7caa50e7f9587de975c4bc2c8

Zelensky is in Munich, trying to cajole Europe into actually helping Ukraine instead of watching from the sidelines.  The Italians and Hungarians are already putting a monkey in the wrench for sanctions on Russian gas exports.  They just need that gas baby.  Hooked.  Looks like the EU will be impotent diplomatically because they have no stick.  They need unanimous agreement to sanction Russia. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/ukrainian-president-munich-conference-russia-volodymyr-zelenskiy

Zelensky says if the US and UK are not going to help defend Ukrainian sovereignty, and if Russia isn't going to respect it, he wants his nuclear weapons back per Budapest Agreement 1994. 

Zelensky says Ukrainians are going to fight with or without help from partners.  Saying countries not standing by Ukraine "should think about karma". 

https://kyivindependent.com/

Zelensky wants to stop hearing that "the door is open, but you're not allowed in" from NATO. 

A bit of a slow boil going on now.  Still rising in temperature but watching the pot seems to be the sure way that nothing will happen.  Warnings keep coming but at this rate Russia can simply just keep up the pressure for months. 

A bunch of talk from Biden on the unity of NATO and Europe, but I honestly don't see it.  Germany, Hungary, and Italy are peeing in the punch bowl. 

Getting Europe off Russian gas won't be easy.  It would have been if the anti-nuke nutjobs in the 80s and 90s had let some countries build more nuclear reactors.  But that's why they're nuts. 

Edit: 

Russia to play Finland in Men's Hockey Final in Olympics on Sunday.  I think at 11 tonight Central US Time. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/sports/olympics/finland-russia-hockey-gold-medal-game.html#:~:text=Finland%20and%20Russia%20will%20play%20for%20the%20gold%20in%20men's%20hockey.&text=The%20Russians%20defeated%20Sweden%2C%202,0%2C%20earlier%20in%20the%20day.

[Grant]

Russian false flag attempts dissected by Bellingcat using online community and metadata. 

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1495355366141534208?cxt=HHwWgIC5vYzyyMApAAAA

I'm embarrassed to link to Twitter but Bellingcat hasn't put it up on it's webpage yet and it's one of those things that is high quality content. 

Video is published by Russian Separatists claiming to show sabotage operation on chlorine tanks.  Bellingcat collaborators online use metadata to find the video was created on the 8th of February, 10 days before the claimed sabotage.  Additional metadata points to the sound from the video being taken from a different video on a military firing range in Finland. 

An overview of additional attempts at false flags, all debunked using metadata, including emergency evacuation video and a car bombing video. 

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/02/20/the-busted-info-ops-driving-russias-false-flag-pretexts-for-invading-ukraine/


Increasing signs that there are different levels of stomach in the EU for sanctioning Russia severely in the case of an invasion, despite all the talk of European/American unity.  Was there ever a chance for diplomacy or economic deterrence?  Pooter doesn't seem to think so, or thinks he's isolated enough that it won't hurt.  He might be right. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/15/sanctions-slam-on-russia-not-swift-united-00009199

Edit:  Finland beats the Russians in hockey at the Olympics, 2 to 1. 

https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/33333624/finland-beats-roc-win-nation-first-olympic-men-ice-hockey-gold-medal

Finish cross-country skier suffers frostbite to penis during 50km race for a 28th place finish.  Russians capture gold and bronze due to lack of penises. 

https://nypost.com/2022/02/20/finland-skier-remi-lindholm-suffers-frozen-penis-in-olympics-mass-start-race/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-country_skiing_at_the_2022_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_50_kilometre_freestyle

[cherrypoptart]

It's not looking good.

Russia is obviously staging attacks on itself including its proxies in Ukraine to use as an excuse to further invade. It's good that they are being called out for the obvious frauds that they are and nobody accepts that Ukraine is attacking Russia right now as the Russians are claiming. Hopefully the world media and the United Nations itself will make it clear that everyone knows the Russians are behaving like liars and thieves, murderers and worse, and on top of that their attempts at maskirovka are pathetic. Nobody's buying it. Nobody.

[Grant]

Nobody's buying it. Nobody.

I think rural Russians and hard core Putinverstehen Russians in the cities are buying it.  Maybe it was meant for them.  Otherwise these "false flags" are pretty pathetic and being ground up and spit out by internet amateurs.  I guess it's more credible from them than from the CIA/MI6, etc.  I dunno.  I was expecting more from RUSSIAN FSB! But maybe I shouldn't have.  The same people are the ones who tracked down the GRU assassins running around Europe and got them to confess over the phone to the guy they were trying to kill.  But if they're so incompetent how were they able to actually get away with half those assassinations? 

I bet there is at least one crazy member of the Trumpy right who believes it.  Candace Owens or somebody.   That other crazy mofo.  Alex Jones? 

I mean, these are the same people who showed that Assad was behind Ghouta but nobody believed them back then.  Everybody thought THAT was a false flag.  It seems to me that actual false flags are pretty pathetic and only believable by people who see what they want to see, and actual atrocities are believed to be false flags by others who don't want to see what they are seeing and the level of skill being attributed to organizations to create these false flags is near superhuman.   

[Grant]

the level of skill being attributed to organizations to create these false flags is near superhuman.

I guess when you grow up watching conspiracy programs on tv about how the moon landing was faked and how the CIA killed Kennedy you end up believing that intelligence agencies have all kinds of weird abilities to fake *censored*.   

[Fenring]

I guess when you grow up watching conspiracy programs on tv about how the moon landing was faked and how the CIA killed Kennedy you end up believing that intelligence agencies have all kinds of weird abilities to fake *censored*.   

I know this is a tangent, but...lol...lumping those two together. This is actually one reason why conspiracy theorists are so hard to talk with; not that they won't talk about it, but when their interlocutors treat every claim as equivalent they basically get the idea that no one is willing to question anything, and they end up left in a bubble of their own.

[Grant]

This is actually one reason why conspiracy theorists are so hard to talk with; not that they won't talk about it, but when their interlocutors treat every claim as equivalent they basically get the idea that no one is willing to question anything, and they end up left in a bubble of their own.

You talk all the time, Fenring.  About Chase Manhattan being behind entire wars and how there MUST BE some voter fraud and we're all being blind.  Where were you on the Ghouta massacre?  I can't remember and I don't think those old threads are still available.

I know this is a tangent, but...lol...lumping those two together.

Please find a bubble to talk about it in.  Talk to some people about how the CIA managed to kill the President without anybody ever finding out.  Or were you referring to how the government built a huge fleet of expensive rockets to fake landing on the moon?  Or is it how Prince Phillip had Princess Di assassinated? 

[TheDrake]

Not equivalent. There's a range from preposterous to wildly unlikely. Some things Oliver Stone can cash in on, other ones can only be exploited by Alex Jones. The history channel can exploit ancient alien visitations, but only YouTubers can exploit 9/11 hoaxes.

All of them belong in the shoebox of innuendo, suspicion, and lack of evidence.

[Grant]

All of them belong in the shoebox of innuendo, suspicion, and lack of evidence.

Back to my point that all these real false flags are easily identifiable and these real conspiracies/assassinations are pathetic, as opposed to the superhuman competence of the CIA and Prince Phillip. 

[Fenring]

You talk all the time, Fenring.  About Chase Manhattan being behind entire wars

I don't think I've posted about anything regard banks/wars in...at minimum years. That being said, heh, if you think banks have no interest in financing wars...well I guess I can't help you with that. I guess no one cares to make money off war in the world...

and how there MUST BE some voter fraud and we're all being blind.  Where were you on the Ghouta massacre?  I can't remember and I don't think those old threads are still available.

I don't think I've ever posted about voter fraud in the sense of championing the position that there's huge voter fraud in the U.S. I do remember posting at one point maybe 8 years ago that I had read that electronic voting can be hacked, but I never claimed it was. You're mistaking me for someone else on this, I think. The main things I am pretty certain about are "conspiracies" in the sense of powerful people planning things together. You can file that under "duh". Whether Kennedy's death is one of those I don't know, but if you think there's no evidence to back it up you haven't done much reading on the topic. I've done enough to know it was really weird, but not enough to have the information at my fingertips to tell you which way I think the evidence points. I have no idea about that one, but only that it's clearly not a crank theory.

[TheDrake]

Can there be false flags that work? Sure, that's no conspiracy. But they tend to have limited scope and applicability. The incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin come to mind. A lot easier to pull off at sea and in an era when it's hard to gather evidence. There remains doubt about precisely what happened there, and more importantly why. That wouldn't necessarily suggest that it wouldn't have been a conspiracy theory at the time to suggest the United States faked the attack or manipulated the details. A lot has to do with the level of certainty.

For instance, you hear a news report about this, and immediately declare that the US faked the whole thing. Or, you immediately declare the Russians faked attacks before getting any details. Or you assume that a lab leak started covid with no evidence to base it on. Some things that start out as conspiracy theories can in fact turn out to be true or become plausible over time. There's plenty of room for healthy speculation about things based solely on an unsupported hypothesis.

Like, I wonder if 9/11 was faked because the United States wanted an excuse to go to war is just a theory and speculation. Until you get the full biographies of the perpetrators, analysis by hundreds of structural engineers, forensic examination of multiple disaster sites. Which is where the conspiracy part comes in. That all of the people out there telling you this was clearly what it appeared to be have all been fooled or they are complicit.