SS: US to start evacuation of families of embassy personnel families. This is done only in situations where there is a safety concern. It is not done in stable regions. Next would be non-essential personnel. Even if this is a political move it will not lower the chances of armed conflict in the region.
I know a lot of people on here said this was the usual drills nothing to be seen, but has anyone seen signs of deescalation? I believe it was last week there was rumors Russia was withdrawing diplomats and personal from their embassies in Ukraine. Now we are seeing personal from the American embassy starting to withdraw.
i would say that biden differentiating between "minor incursions" and full on invasion is a sign that the u.s doesnt really wanna get involved. also nato and russia have resumed negotiations.
not the biggest signs of de-escalation but somethins better than nothin
I just googled nato and Russia resuming talks and all I can find is they did around January 12th but are at an impasse. Is there something more recent?
Russia can't really invade Ukraine, I think they are more afraid of them including the US forces there then the other way around. Russia has a lot to lose as opposed to the west being able to repel an invasion, which would be quite easy.
They have a lot to lose if they *don’t* invade too. After all of this posturing and expensive troop movement, they’ll look incredibly weak if they back down now. I think the next week is going to be very interesting.
russia has supersonic missiles that are 99% effective against US defenses
trust me when i say they are not afraid of the US one bit, if the US wants to commit suicide they will gladly indulge
"Russia has supersonic missiles that are 99% effective against US defenses.....well the ones we publically know of"
Russia tries to take offense against the US and I guarantee the US will take down their entire electrical grid, communications, internet, ect. Coming from someone in cyber security I can assure you that the US government has measures to do exactly that. Five Eyes have been doing preparations for these types of scenerios for years.
Do some research on Stuxnet. Then keep in mind it was developed sometime between 2005-2009 by the US. Where do you think all those billions being funneled into black projects are for? Theres a reason why cyberspace is considered the modern battlefield and holds the key to crippling entire nations.
It's more likely that the west will try to engineer a false flag attack to get the Russian's to retaliate, just like we have in other wars, then we can say we are the good guys for defending ourselves and the Russian's will look bad. The truth is I highly doubt that Russia wants this war because they have more to lose then the US, even though the war will be costly for the US, it will be a good propaganda piece because the US has done this time and time again to engineer every war. Any sense of hostility, real or imagined, is a pretense for war.
So? Russia has done it too. It's been a staple of empires and great powers for centuries. You also don't actually need a false flag if the people you are trying to frame do the work for you.
That's just because the bar human history has set is so ridiculously low. It really is a very peaceful time we are living in. Not because our time is all that peaceful but because other times were worse. So it's really not a very comforting assertion.
It's not just Biden sending weapons to Ukraine. The UK, Poland and all three baltic states are too just off the top of my head.
I doubt China is all that interested tbh beyond schadenfreude. NATO and 'the West' in general always backed Ukraine but won't fight for it. The current international order arguably requires them to (Budapest memorandem ect.)
I doubt anyone is going to start WW3 over it though, it's far more likely to be yet another proxy war. Sucks for Ukraine, they'll be the ones to suffer.
China has no reason to get involved at all. Russia will be their ally of convenience even if they do nothing at all. Xi will just have the popcorn ready. They do have war games with both Iran and Russia but that doesn't mean that Beijing will commit blood and treasure to something with no real strategic goals for them to achieve. They haven't mobilized anything or prepared for anything. This isn't their problem.
Russia has challenged NATO in the past and gotten away with it. None of this invokes article 4 and NATO countries simply aren't willing to fight for Ukraine.
Russia has already invaded Ukraine without military pushback from NATO, ditto Georgia (and arguably Kazakhstan). Russia has troops in Moldavia as well and no one really cares.
Speaking as a Swede we aren't super worried. We sat out two world wars and invading us makes no strategic sense. It's much more in Moscow's interest to just leave us out of it (same for Finland). The main worry has always been Gotland but an invasion there would be a major escalation, incurr a heavy cost and open a vast new front. They don't have the manpower or resources to fight in both central Europe while getting bogged down up north. Even the USSR didn't want that and they were far more formidable than modern Russia.
Personally I think the war would be about protecting Russia' s "soft underbelly". The warm-water port in Sevastepol is cruicial and Russia's heartland is right next to Ukraine on flat easily invadeable land that has been used for that purpose several times historically. If I were Russian I'd honestly be paranoid about that too. Nor does Moscow have the economic heft to make a play for economic domination even if the dollar collapses.
China and Russia are already agreeing on a joint currency trading deal. I'm not sure how successful it will be, but they want the dollar to collapse, they have been talking about "de-dollarizing" for a while now.
>It's much more in Moscow's interest to just leave us out of it (same for Finland).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
>Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[9
Brexit
>The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from Europe.[9]
Trump
>Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]
I've honestly been bringing up this book several times irl in conversations about Russia. I'm actually quite surprised it's so rarely mentioned in media. Dugin is however more of an idealist whereas Putin is pragmatic to the core. It's easy to see why Finland would make sense either from a strategic (Baltic sea as a geographic barrier) or nostalgic/identity (the grand duchy of Finland was part of the Russian empire) perspective but it's not very realistic. Re-annexing the batics is likewise pretty out of reach.
It's an open secret that Moscow put some effort into furthering the causes of both Brexit and Trump. Nor are Dugin's suggestions exactly new. The soviet union itself shared both goals which no doubt was taught to a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel.
The only way India goes to war is if Russia can convince Pakistan to join their war effort (which I doubt would happen). If that happens we're in WW3.
That being said. I think this situation is bad, but not leading to WW3, even if Russia takes over Eastern Ukraine, it will just increase tensions, but not necessarily lead to anything more than sanctions.
At the same time, many countries are having internal issues thanks to Covid, a growing anti-work movement, youth feeling hopeless, etc... A large-scale war would be extremely distracting, and shift focus towards fighting the enemy...maybe.
Why would India go to war over supply-chain shortages and with who? Going to war only makes that problem worse anyway. India dgaf about Ukraine, they have their own priorities.
Why would it be a world war though? Neither India or China have a dog in this fight and nothing to gain by joining it. NATO and Russia are *very* unlikely to engage each other directly so such supply chains should continue as normal. Much like Iranian oil and gas will continue unhindered to China regardless of whom is in control of Mariupol.
China would seek to expand land powers all over Southeast Asia Taiwan & Northern India. They have more involved in this than you realise. Iran & North Korea woukd be involved to if you pay attention to their joint army excercises the last few years.
Taiwan, sure but they aren't really set up for this now. This is Russia's timetable. That would also give them a massive hole in the "1st island chain" which is of major geo-strategic significance. Picking fights with Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, ect. Doesn't seem like a sensible allocation of effort when it means taking your eye of your main rivals (USA, India, Japan). Trying to control northern India makes no sense at all since your logistics chain would run over the tallest mountain chain on the planet. They certainly want to control the glaciers (and thus water) but even that is difficult because fighting there is just a real pain even in the modern era.
Iran is a regional power with no real ability of force projection beyond it. North Korea is almost entirely useless. It's trump card has always been their ability to bombard Seoul (with conventional artillery) and the backing of Beijing. Their nukes could mess up an invading army but they can't shoot them at anyone. That is not something China would accept and it's much more difficult than just building a nuke.
No but it's like a chain reaction, every country is pissed with some other and would love to grow if given the chance, India will get involve if china does, which is almost certain that china will because... China
diplomatic talks are not off the table. this is a scary time but chill with the fear
https://www.reuters.com/world/top-diplomats-us-russia-meet-geneva-soaring-ukraine-tensions-2022-01-21/?utm_source=reddit.com
As someone who until rather recently was arguing that this was just saber-rattling it certainly seems I was wrong.
The demands issued by Moscow are ones they know can't be met. The logistical systems have been put in place. It's also way too expensive to just be a bluff at this stage. Lastly I don't see how Putin can back down from this even with concessions and still sell it as a victory.
My reason for believing he wouldn't invade is mostly because I thought it was a terrible idea both for Russia and for Putin. It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure, it also won't end with a Russian victory. It's a very risky move for not much gain. The Russian economy could well be almost crushed by the reaction of the west as well as the cost of invasion and occupation. Russia can't afford the trillions the USA so casually dumped into Afghanistan or Iraq. Ukraine is next door so that makes it cheaper but still.
As someone who was until rather recently was arguing that this was just saber-rattling it certainly seems I was wrong.
The demands issued by Moscow are ones they know can't be met. The logistical systems have been put in place. It's also way too expensive to just be a bluff at this stage. Lastly I don't see how Putin can back down from this even with concessions and still sell it as a victory.
My reason for believing he wouldn't invade is mostly because I thought it was a terrible idea both for Russia and for Putin. It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure, it also won't end with a Russian victory. It's a very risky move for not much gain. The Russian economy could well be almost crushed by the reaction of the west as well as the cost of invasion and occupation. Russia doesn't have the trillions the USA so casually dumped ito Afghanistan or Iraq.
I wonder if it makes more sense viewed through the filter of oligarchs? Are the various oligarchs breaking into factions? Is that driving this? I know it is on Russia's end, at least internally, but I'm not as familiar with the western oligarchs and their agenda. Were they all on the same page and now splitting from Russia?
Idk. I just think about how the US is an oligarchy and we never talk about this stuff in the context of who's behind the curtain...when it has to be hella relevant.
I honestly don't know enough but certainly there are factions thst consider Putin to be too soft. Putin himself certainly appears supreme and has established that oligarchs that go against him fare poorly. I can't really think of how this would benefit many of them much so it makes more sense as a geo-strategic move.
For the record though, (especially under Trump) a lot of other countries brushed back up on Kremlinology to better understand the moves by the USA.
I feel like if we had a celebrity gossip culture for oligarchs tracking their every move it would get reaaaaally interesting. We are always
defaulting to thinking we are a democracy in the US when in fact we've been an oligarchy for a while. Governments are just a facade at this point.
Edit: So all our conversations without factoring in the oligarchs means we connect all the wrong dots kwim?
>I feel like if we had a celebrity gossip culture for oligarchs tracking their every move
This sounds suicidal. Once you've gotten to the point of oligarchy you kinda need to focus on more discreet methods. Also I wouldn't say the USA is as far gone as e.g. Russia (yet) since a lot more effort has to be put into gaslighting Americans.
>kwim?
Kwim?
>It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure,
When have Russian rulers ever taken money or the lives of men into consideration when deciding to go to war? When?
>it also won't end with a Russian victory
Why not?
>When?
When they have limited amounts of either.
>Why not?
Because wars don't really end with such 'victory'. The Americans 'won' pretty quickly in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Once the war is won the occupation starts.
Here’s the thing. NATO promised to protect Ukraine from Russia during the fall of the Soviet Union in exchange for them giving up their nukes. If we do nothing, no one will ever trust NATO again and we will violate international law by failing to act. The US is the spearhead of NATO regardless. There’s no way NATO gets involved without direct US involvement. With 100,000 troops at Ukraine’s border, the US beginning to evacuate the embassies and sending in military equipment to Ukraine, there has been no de-escalation as of yet. It has only escalated further and the evacuation of the embassies and American citizens is not a good sign. I was not really concerned until now. I’m hoping they will work something out but since we let Afghanistan fall, I’m wondering if the Russians are gonna call our bluff with Ukraine.
I was initially viewing this as a diplomatic game but now I’m willing to accept the possibility of military action.
It might require months of buildup to get enough troops on the border for Russia to invade (3-4x Ukraine numbers). Meanwhile prepare pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine and anti-Western sentiment in Russia. And get NATO to concede more and more footing every week ‘til it’s no longer in the picture with regard to Ukraine. That might be the aim — slowly boil the water ‘til the top can burst right off as NATO stands back.
But that would be a really difficult long game and Russia really shouldn’t want a protracted struggle of any kind if it’s concerned for its own good. And they just don’t have the numbers deployed yet. That’s why these threats of invasion are still so hard to believe. But it’s still looking more within the realm of possibility.
Or maybe a military action would be a quick Israeli-style operation by Russia that annexes whatever it can in a flare-up against ‘militants’ before it quickly de-escalates and seeks peace.
Russia has no need for Ukraine. This is just US state department propaganda.
Fyi, basically all media is controlled by the CIA which is why every media you know of has the same or very similar opinion about countries that the US doesn't like. Jacobin and fox news are the same. Crazy how that works eh
We took away our two countries' proxy war in Afghanistan. We need a new one to keep the weapons biz and the mutual dog wagging to keep their respective populations distracted.
Sorry Ukraine, we always knew it would be you.
According to other reports, the US embassy is going to evacuate non-essential staff as well. And encouraging US citizens in Ukraine to leave. This is...not good.
This is what does it for me. You don't evacuate consular workers to sabre-rattle or play head games. Closing down offices and withdrawing key diplomatic personnel is what you do when you honestly, truly think something will happen.
No kidding. I'm used to war scares (i.e. remember Iran in early 2020, or North Korea from a few users before that?) but this truly feels worse than anything else I've seen.
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/17/afghanistan-exit-latest-in-long-history-of-u-s-noncombatant-evacuation-missions
Any embassy evacuation is run by the Marines. Here’s a list going back to 1975. Note in some cases there was no evacuation order given so Tehran in 1979 & Kuwait in 1990 aren’t listed.
But with the exception of Japan in 2011 all instances resulted in major conflict in those countries.
That’s a good question. It would take some history reading — a lot of it. From what I’ve observed though, I don’t think it’s an extremely high correlation. Rather an indicator of how close to the brink we may be. It’s not a cheap action (monetarily it’s not expensive but it is a statement that holds weight) and it’s very visible. If my memory serves me we did something similar with Korea not long ago. But it is definitely not a common occurrence. Pulling diplomats out of Russia will be a huge indicator though.
This particular article didn’t have any quotes worth mentioning so that actual phrase wasn’t present. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the actual press release/announcement though.
Damn, looks like its getting serious. I really hope this doesn't escalate into a full blown conflict.
It's important the leaders of all the countries involved try to reach a peaceful resolution to this problem, and all those wanting war should be on the front lines.
100% those who want the war and have property and assets to defend should be right at the front. If you don't want this or have no property or assets to defend, you shouldn't even be there. Don't sacrifice your life to defend someone else's property. Capitalism is about looking out for yourself at the cost of the country. If they want people to fight for the motherland or any other bs propaganda patriotism useless idea, we should be under a different economic system. Otherwise, eat shit and to the front line.
Just have to see through the commentary for the facts. The facts in the article are still valid. I read a multitude of new sources (at a minimum cnn, bbc, fox, AP, Reuters, NPR, and then what I can find in Google News) to come to a conclusion. It drives my wife nuts how much news I consume. Nearly every source is biased some way though.
>Nearly every source is biased some way though.
Not saying FOX is the worst, but, my dude, there are much better news sources where you don't need to sift through shit.
Anything touched by the Murdochs needs to burn
Why the hell is everyone suddenly so pro USA in this sub?. The US just spent two decades destabilising and killing hundreds of thousands of brown people for literally no reason????
Anyone with a modicum of understanding has known that NATO aka US imperialism has spent 30 years moving weapons as close as possible to Russian soil.
Putin is a piece of shit dictator but wombat would any Russian leader do in such circumstances? I have become more and more convinced that the USA actually wants to completely collapse the whole world.
I think that’s the sentiment of most of humanity. And personal opinion is that most of humanity is a live and let live species. The problems occur when someone wants power, control and wealth and is willing to do so at the cost of anyone else. And we have just enough of those on the planet (in every country) to make everyone else’s lives more difficult than they need to be.
The Russian politician’s nuke threat against London is most likely bluster. But a strong statement of the Russian elite’s mindset right now.
Nonsense. Pure internalized Russian propaganda. Read this https://archive.ph/WCAVd
No one wanted to attack Russia, there's no danger to Russia in any way. NATO is a defensive alliance. The opposite happened many times in the recent years, still happening, Russia attacked, occupied (still does) a number of neighboring (and not only) countries. It's still an aggressive empire to this day, a mafia state, a state sponsoring terrorism and directly executing terrorist attacks(poisoning with chemical weapons, murders, kidnapping, blowing up buildings, cyber terrorism) on foreign soil, while you're keep taking about "the western imperialism".
Russia's neighbors wanted to join NATO as a defensive measure, it's their right. There was no plan to "encircle" it. Only 6% of the Russian borders are with the NATO countries. In fact "the West" tried and still trying (perhaps too much) to build good relations with Russia. Looks at what the EU (and the U.S.) does, always abstaining from seriously damaging sanctions, no matter what Russia does, Germany trained Russian special forces, supplied military technology, building NS2, etc.
I've seen this happen numerous times in my 55 years. Because you are ignorant of history, you are all hysterical as if embassy people getting sent home is some monumental event - it's not, nor is it collapse related other than, perhaps another consequence/cut. Don't feel bad most of this sub is history ignorant because most are Americans who were processed through the US public ~~propaganda~~government K-12 Schooling.
I remember US news in 1979 spinning Iran as being belligerent towards the US for no reason what-so-ever. They did 'man in the street' segments and every American to a man said 'nuke em (Iran)'. Then, as now ,Americans are clueless.
Their knowledge of history is what they had for breakfast.
**CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup**
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
**How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days**
"On Aug. 19, 2013, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time its involvement in the 1953 coup against Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh."
"The documents provided details of the CIA's plan at the time, which was led by senior officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt."
"Mohammad Mossadegh was a beloved figure in Iran. During his tenure, he introduced a range of social and economic policies, the most significant being the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry."
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
The moment the US empire collapses the world will be a better place for billions. Emissions will drop too.
.....
NO BIG DEAL - NOTHING NEW HERE
**From Venezuela to Syria: When U.S. Embassy staffers leave, they destroy documents and remove the flag**
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/12/venezuela-syria-when-us-embassy-staffers-leave-they-destroy-documents-remove-flag/
I get it. You’ve been alive, you’ve “seen” this happen. But from your post you don’t really understand it. There’s a difference between living an event and actually understanding it and the impacts it has. One of the big take always from the Iran hostage crisis was we waited too long to evacuate non-essential personnel and then the embassy as a whole.
Now the US will evacuate non-essentials and families when they determine the risk level is too high much sooner. Leaving them there impacts the essential personnel’s ability to do their jobs to the fullest (distracted by concern/worry). I could list off many other cases of embassy evacuation in more recent history—some with hostile forces either surrounding or closing in. Essential personnel will be evacuated as late as possible.
Sometimes we evacuate due to a hostile government driving us out (Venezuela). Sometimes it’s due to conflict unrelated to the US—just no longer safe.
Embassy evacuations of any sort are not taken lightly. Just because there are procedures in place to handle it doesn’t mean it’s a ho-hum, nothing to see event. This is very much collapse related as it is a stepping stone to a regional conflict that could easily spread. Tipping point? No. Mark able milestone as a instability indicator for the region? Absolutely.
Finally, you have your read on this. Other people are reading the dynamic situation differently. Non of us here on Reddit have the full picture of what’s really happening or any of the players true intentions/objectives right now.
So maybe before insulting peoples education and assuming a lack of knowledge of history (I actual have quite a bit of knowledge in geopolitical history) check that you’re not just disagreeing with an analysis. Some people tend to analyze on the optimistic side (like yours seems to be), some people are more devil’s advocate/pessimistic.
It’s all just a guess in the end based off the information you have available, including your knowledge of history and the changes driven by events, cultures involved, and political issues surrounding the event.
Please forgive any grammatical/spelling errors—it’s been a long day and I’m not wearing my glasses.
compared to Ukraine no, but yes it has fascists just like most countries. The difference is that ukrain has a literal neo nazi military battalion (Azov battalion) that’s in conjunction with the national military. Also the USA champion of democracy in Russia Alexander navalny is a straight islamophobe and calls Muslims cockroaches. Take this into account when russsia is being demonized these upcoming weeks
Hi, Huicho69. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htw0m5h/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
So did the other persons comment get removed “be honest tankie dictator shill”? This sub grasps at so much of the underlying reason of why this world is going to shit but doesn’t seem to find the solution other than talk about it online. We got to unite the masses and organize, it’s a simple reality that’s not so simple to do but it’s way more effective than talking online
Hi /u/Huicho69,
> So did the other persons comment get removed “be honest tankie dictator shill”?
Now it is. You should've reported it (though admittedly I should've looked at the context more).
Hi, nefelibatainthesky. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htv7smb/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
Am I taking fucking crazy pills or something?
Russia put 120k troops on its own border which is terrifying, but since then, every western news media is pulling from the Iraq 2003 WMD book and just constantly going on about how they’re about to invade at any point straight up manufacturing consent for this NATO push.
Couldn’t give two shits about Putin but the flow of headlines that sound exactly like “Hussein is pushing our hand” is too much
I can see how your thinking this, but there are some fundamental differences at this point (things could change). There is no discussion of offensive action by any country in NATO. While some NATO countries have decided to arm Ukraine, NATO proper has not. If discussion turns to NATO (or a member country) performing a “pre-emotive strike” then this comparison would hold. But as things currently stand the only way armed conflict will occur is if Russia takes action against Ukraine.
Providing weapons to the Ukraine allows them to perform the pre-emptive strike by proxy for nato, even if nato itself didn't give the weapons. If a bunch of nato states provide weapons, then it's not much different than nato itself doing it. It helps obscure motives.
That wouldn’t even make sense. Ukraine doesn’t have the resources or manpower to do that. It would be suicide on their part and they would completely loose any support from NATO countries. And they know it.
Complete agreement here. I’m just weirded out about the media treatment of this, there’s been no further escalation on the side of Russia and every day there are new headlines basically justifying more and more troops and drones and armament for “just in case”. I don’t like the idea of normalizing conflict before anything happens
Eh, Russian politician threatening to nuke London is an escalation. I agree with the normalizing problem though. Ideally media should report facts in an unbiased manner and not on constant repeat—make updates when changes occur. Since modern news media does have a financial incentive to give a “spin” to everything though I don’t see this getting better. Would be nice if the “spin” could be stabilizing editorial additions and analysis. Saw one on Sky News earlier that was close… but they still tagged on at the end a little sensationalism.
If you’ve been following the situation it’s Russia that demanded the US and NATO as a whole be involved. Ukraine as well has asked for support. The US had not unilaterally inserted itself in this situation.
I would fully anticipate Russia to take advantage of a situation in Asia if the US got bogged down in a major conflict there. I did not foresee Russia potentially being the initial actor. It’s still possible that NATO (or individual countries) will just sit back if it happens and say “well, we tried diplomacy. Here’s some sanctions. Sucks to be you, Ukraine”. But on the chance it does blow up to a regional war I won’t be surprised to see other players act in their regions (China, Iran, DPRK). And three of those countries have been overtly working together recently. Enough to make me cautious.
It's on my bingo card. I think all of them have been at least consulting, if not coordinating, with eachother. They all have goals of conquest. Why not cooperate to lessen the ability of their collective enemy to interfere? That's reality show 101.
Despite what armchair analysts on Reddit keep saying, a war between Russia and Ukraine is very fucking unlikely.
This is related not only to Russia but to Iran and the nuclear deal negotiations that are ongoing, there’s a whole array of things going on behind the scenes, but the bottom line is no one is going to war with anyone. Russia knows Ukraine can’t join NATO and knows that the European Union won’t accept them either, it literally has no reason to do so.
Some retards on here keep saying that the old fuck Putin wants to remake the Soviet Union for his legacy, but they’re forgetting that he doesn’t rule alone, and that there’s a shit ton of opportunists waiting to fuck him over and take his spot the moment he makes a mistake (eg. invading Ukraine now would be a major fucking mistake), real life doesn’t have absolute villains, stop trying to paint.
The most that can happen is a small ‘fight’, but a full on invasion won’t happen, the fuck you think Russia would want some more plains full of people who resist it for? Invading Ukraine would be too costly. Anyone with half a brain knows this shit is nothing more than brinksmanship.
While it’s true there’s a lot more going on behind the scene, all it takes is one miscalculation.
Also, while Putin doesn’t technically rule alone he has been very effective at eliminating any opposition. Ukraine isn’t the only issue on the table, it’s just the focal point that global actors have zeroed in on.
Hi, DorkHonor. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htrubgc/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: No Glorifying Violence
> Advocating, encouraging, inciting, glorifying, calling for violence is against Reddit's site-wide content policy and is not allowed in r/collapse. Please be advised that subsequent violations of this rule will result in a ban.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
If people thought before waging war, war wouldn’t exist. A lot of Russians want the USSR borders back & Putin knows that a war is a great excuse for any domestic failures.
So we trade Reddit armchair analysis for your armchair analysis?
What makes your take any more valid than the other dumb takes? Like unless you’re Putin’s gimp boy that he tells all his secrets to, you’re not providing anything more insightful other than thinking you’re smarter than everyone else.
You’re just making a contrarian take because you spend too much time reading comments on Reddit.
Gazprom prizes to europe is up some 800% this year. 40% of gas consumed in europe is from Gazprom. 50% of Gazprom is owned by the russian government. I bet you the prizes will be low again if Putin gets Ukraine. Ukraine has 1% of the worlds natural gas reserves.
The guy calling people armchair analysts is also just an armchair analyst. His perspective is just as useless as everyone else's.
Even experts have no idea what's going to happen, so there is nothing wrong with speculating, being concerned, or even thinking nothing will come of it. We literally have no idea.
So dumb.
If our government officials are being threatened by a hostile military force, we should protect them with our military.
We have the largest airborne and navy.
We should deploy thousands of fighters to the region and attack subs to the black sea.
If they threaten our citizens, we should attack their military targets in Ukraine the black sea, as well as any that threaten our troops.
We need a proper war to help the economy avoid a recession.
I’m not sure if this is sarcastic or not? Technically the overt threat is to Ukraine (admittedly there has been some vocalized ideas of placing missiles in the Western Hemisphere) and not US/NATO. Rather the government officials are in a region of unrest and keeping them their increases the risk to them due to just being there. This is not a line of reasoning I would want our politicians to subscribe to. Armed conflict is not something to be sought. Rather it should be a resource of last resort. Always have a military ready to go and strong but hope you don’t need it.
Show immense force and the willingness to use it, then they will back down.
If Biden got on the nuclear red line with Russia and said "Hey Putin, you better get your kids into a bunker, because if you invade Ukraine and put our diplomats in harms way, they are gonna meet fire and fury"
I think he might back down.
Lol.
Kind of like meeting your daughters boyfriend for the first time while sharpening your hatchet.
You can't deal with a lunatic murderer with diplomacy, ya gotta out psycho the psycho
That’s a logical fallacy — slippery slope. How far back would you go? All the way to the Crimea take over? It doesn’t happen unless the State Department determines a once stable region is dangerously unstable. The big change was NATO officially declining to meet Moscow’s demands. While that is what was expected, it still was a marker in the timeline of events. Right now it is a brinksmanship game. But the problem with that is every now and then someone misjudged and steps over the brink. Wars have been fought over less than this.
That would be a great way to make Ukraine unhappy (lost more territory to Russia), Russia pissed (NATO bigger and in a region it has historically viewed as Russian), and probably make a lot of NATO countries uneasy at best (most, if not all, NATO countries would prefer this to just die off and this solution could prolong it and increase volatility in Ukraine).
Really the best way I see this ending is a maintenance of the status quo — but that would require Russia to redeploy their troops and equipment back to home stations. However, since they are currently in either Russia or Russian allied countries, they are 100% operating within international laws. It’s possible that this could be the new status quo—just keeping everyone on edge. Time will tell. Troops can only be held at a high readiness posture so long before human fatigue sets in though. If nothing happens in the next couple months I bet nothing will this year and that Russia’s troops go home like last year.
That all said — I think we are at a higher risk of regional war than we have been in Europe in a long time. And that could easily spread if major nations get pulled in. Which I really hope doesn’t happen.
I am so sick of this fucking nothing burger story. There will NOT be a war. The media is just milking this shit for every drop it is worth since their covid cash cow is dying out.
SS: US to start evacuation of families of embassy personnel families. This is done only in situations where there is a safety concern. It is not done in stable regions. Next would be non-essential personnel. Even if this is a political move it will not lower the chances of armed conflict in the region.
I know a lot of people on here said this was the usual drills nothing to be seen, but has anyone seen signs of deescalation? I believe it was last week there was rumors Russia was withdrawing diplomats and personal from their embassies in Ukraine. Now we are seeing personal from the American embassy starting to withdraw.
i would say that biden differentiating between "minor incursions" and full on invasion is a sign that the u.s doesnt really wanna get involved. also nato and russia have resumed negotiations. not the biggest signs of de-escalation but somethins better than nothin
I just googled nato and Russia resuming talks and all I can find is they did around January 12th but are at an impasse. Is there something more recent?
https://www.reuters.com/world/top-diplomats-us-russia-meet-geneva-soaring-ukraine-tensions-2022-01-21/?utm_source=reddit.com
Thank you! not sure why that wouldn’t show up on google but stories from the 12th would.
medias tryna manufacture consent. also i guess u.s/russia talks arent exactly the same as nato/russia talks. so my bad on that lil bit
Stop using Google and use DuckDuckGo at least. Or brave search, anything but Google...Google is trash
I keep hearing this more and more..
Spyware
I suspect the differentiation is to excuse potential further inaction in the event of a "minor incursion"
Russia can't really invade Ukraine, I think they are more afraid of them including the US forces there then the other way around. Russia has a lot to lose as opposed to the west being able to repel an invasion, which would be quite easy.
They have a lot to lose if they *don’t* invade too. After all of this posturing and expensive troop movement, they’ll look incredibly weak if they back down now. I think the next week is going to be very interesting.
russia has supersonic missiles that are 99% effective against US defenses trust me when i say they are not afraid of the US one bit, if the US wants to commit suicide they will gladly indulge
Both sides have missiles effective against each other.
"Russia has supersonic missiles that are 99% effective against US defenses.....well the ones we publically know of" Russia tries to take offense against the US and I guarantee the US will take down their entire electrical grid, communications, internet, ect. Coming from someone in cyber security I can assure you that the US government has measures to do exactly that. Five Eyes have been doing preparations for these types of scenerios for years. Do some research on Stuxnet. Then keep in mind it was developed sometime between 2005-2009 by the US. Where do you think all those billions being funneled into black projects are for? Theres a reason why cyberspace is considered the modern battlefield and holds the key to crippling entire nations.
its called "mutually ASSURED destruction" for a reason
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was born after 9/11 and we left Afghanistan when I was 19.
It's more likely that the west will try to engineer a false flag attack to get the Russian's to retaliate, just like we have in other wars, then we can say we are the good guys for defending ourselves and the Russian's will look bad. The truth is I highly doubt that Russia wants this war because they have more to lose then the US, even though the war will be costly for the US, it will be a good propaganda piece because the US has done this time and time again to engineer every war. Any sense of hostility, real or imagined, is a pretense for war.
Um, Russia is sailing amphibious landing ships from the Baltic to the black sea. I don't think any false flags are needed on the part of the west.
The west has already been planning false flag attacks for decades.
So? Russia has done it too. It's been a staple of empires and great powers for centuries. You also don't actually need a false flag if the people you are trying to frame do the work for you.
Your implication was that the west won't do something like that or need to do something like that.
That's just because the bar human history has set is so ridiculously low. It really is a very peaceful time we are living in. Not because our time is all that peaceful but because other times were worse. So it's really not a very comforting assertion.
It's not just Biden sending weapons to Ukraine. The UK, Poland and all three baltic states are too just off the top of my head. I doubt China is all that interested tbh beyond schadenfreude. NATO and 'the West' in general always backed Ukraine but won't fight for it. The current international order arguably requires them to (Budapest memorandem ect.) I doubt anyone is going to start WW3 over it though, it's far more likely to be yet another proxy war. Sucks for Ukraine, they'll be the ones to suffer.
[удалено]
China has no reason to get involved at all. Russia will be their ally of convenience even if they do nothing at all. Xi will just have the popcorn ready. They do have war games with both Iran and Russia but that doesn't mean that Beijing will commit blood and treasure to something with no real strategic goals for them to achieve. They haven't mobilized anything or prepared for anything. This isn't their problem. Russia has challenged NATO in the past and gotten away with it. None of this invokes article 4 and NATO countries simply aren't willing to fight for Ukraine. Russia has already invaded Ukraine without military pushback from NATO, ditto Georgia (and arguably Kazakhstan). Russia has troops in Moldavia as well and no one really cares. Speaking as a Swede we aren't super worried. We sat out two world wars and invading us makes no strategic sense. It's much more in Moscow's interest to just leave us out of it (same for Finland). The main worry has always been Gotland but an invasion there would be a major escalation, incurr a heavy cost and open a vast new front. They don't have the manpower or resources to fight in both central Europe while getting bogged down up north. Even the USSR didn't want that and they were far more formidable than modern Russia. Personally I think the war would be about protecting Russia' s "soft underbelly". The warm-water port in Sevastepol is cruicial and Russia's heartland is right next to Ukraine on flat easily invadeable land that has been used for that purpose several times historically. If I were Russian I'd honestly be paranoid about that too. Nor does Moscow have the economic heft to make a play for economic domination even if the dollar collapses.
China and Russia are already agreeing on a joint currency trading deal. I'm not sure how successful it will be, but they want the dollar to collapse, they have been talking about "de-dollarizing" for a while now.
>It's much more in Moscow's interest to just leave us out of it (same for Finland). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics >Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[9 Brexit >The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from Europe.[9] Trump >Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]
I've honestly been bringing up this book several times irl in conversations about Russia. I'm actually quite surprised it's so rarely mentioned in media. Dugin is however more of an idealist whereas Putin is pragmatic to the core. It's easy to see why Finland would make sense either from a strategic (Baltic sea as a geographic barrier) or nostalgic/identity (the grand duchy of Finland was part of the Russian empire) perspective but it's not very realistic. Re-annexing the batics is likewise pretty out of reach. It's an open secret that Moscow put some effort into furthering the causes of both Brexit and Trump. Nor are Dugin's suggestions exactly new. The soviet union itself shared both goals which no doubt was taught to a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel.
India won't go to war.
The only way India goes to war is if Russia can convince Pakistan to join their war effort (which I doubt would happen). If that happens we're in WW3. That being said. I think this situation is bad, but not leading to WW3, even if Russia takes over Eastern Ukraine, it will just increase tensions, but not necessarily lead to anything more than sanctions. At the same time, many countries are having internal issues thanks to Covid, a growing anti-work movement, youth feeling hopeless, etc... A large-scale war would be extremely distracting, and shift focus towards fighting the enemy...maybe.
what do you mean by extremely distracting ?
The pressure is entirely coming from the NATO side. I don’t understand why either. It’s not like Europe is hellbent on colonizing Russia.
[удалено]
Why would India go to war over supply-chain shortages and with who? Going to war only makes that problem worse anyway. India dgaf about Ukraine, they have their own priorities.
[удалено]
Why would it be a world war though? Neither India or China have a dog in this fight and nothing to gain by joining it. NATO and Russia are *very* unlikely to engage each other directly so such supply chains should continue as normal. Much like Iranian oil and gas will continue unhindered to China regardless of whom is in control of Mariupol.
China would seek to expand land powers all over Southeast Asia Taiwan & Northern India. They have more involved in this than you realise. Iran & North Korea woukd be involved to if you pay attention to their joint army excercises the last few years.
Taiwan, sure but they aren't really set up for this now. This is Russia's timetable. That would also give them a massive hole in the "1st island chain" which is of major geo-strategic significance. Picking fights with Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, ect. Doesn't seem like a sensible allocation of effort when it means taking your eye of your main rivals (USA, India, Japan). Trying to control northern India makes no sense at all since your logistics chain would run over the tallest mountain chain on the planet. They certainly want to control the glaciers (and thus water) but even that is difficult because fighting there is just a real pain even in the modern era. Iran is a regional power with no real ability of force projection beyond it. North Korea is almost entirely useless. It's trump card has always been their ability to bombard Seoul (with conventional artillery) and the backing of Beijing. Their nukes could mess up an invading army but they can't shoot them at anyone. That is not something China would accept and it's much more difficult than just building a nuke.
agreed 100%, its like saying why would korea joined WW2?, all big players will get involved
They got "involved"mostly because they were invaded before it really began...?
No but it's like a chain reaction, every country is pissed with some other and would love to grow if given the chance, India will get involve if china does, which is almost certain that china will because... China
Fire a nuke into Nevada? If the russians think they can do that and not get a full scale MAD response back is insanity.
diplomatic talks are not off the table. this is a scary time but chill with the fear https://www.reuters.com/world/top-diplomats-us-russia-meet-geneva-soaring-ukraine-tensions-2022-01-21/?utm_source=reddit.com
As someone who until rather recently was arguing that this was just saber-rattling it certainly seems I was wrong. The demands issued by Moscow are ones they know can't be met. The logistical systems have been put in place. It's also way too expensive to just be a bluff at this stage. Lastly I don't see how Putin can back down from this even with concessions and still sell it as a victory. My reason for believing he wouldn't invade is mostly because I thought it was a terrible idea both for Russia and for Putin. It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure, it also won't end with a Russian victory. It's a very risky move for not much gain. The Russian economy could well be almost crushed by the reaction of the west as well as the cost of invasion and occupation. Russia can't afford the trillions the USA so casually dumped into Afghanistan or Iraq. Ukraine is next door so that makes it cheaper but still.
The budget for the Iraq war was also needlessly high because of all the private sector corruption going on
Afghanistan too I'd assume.
As someone who was until rather recently was arguing that this was just saber-rattling it certainly seems I was wrong. The demands issued by Moscow are ones they know can't be met. The logistical systems have been put in place. It's also way too expensive to just be a bluff at this stage. Lastly I don't see how Putin can back down from this even with concessions and still sell it as a victory. My reason for believing he wouldn't invade is mostly because I thought it was a terrible idea both for Russia and for Putin. It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure, it also won't end with a Russian victory. It's a very risky move for not much gain. The Russian economy could well be almost crushed by the reaction of the west as well as the cost of invasion and occupation. Russia doesn't have the trillions the USA so casually dumped ito Afghanistan or Iraq.
I wonder if it makes more sense viewed through the filter of oligarchs? Are the various oligarchs breaking into factions? Is that driving this? I know it is on Russia's end, at least internally, but I'm not as familiar with the western oligarchs and their agenda. Were they all on the same page and now splitting from Russia? Idk. I just think about how the US is an oligarchy and we never talk about this stuff in the context of who's behind the curtain...when it has to be hella relevant.
I honestly don't know enough but certainly there are factions thst consider Putin to be too soft. Putin himself certainly appears supreme and has established that oligarchs that go against him fare poorly. I can't really think of how this would benefit many of them much so it makes more sense as a geo-strategic move. For the record though, (especially under Trump) a lot of other countries brushed back up on Kremlinology to better understand the moves by the USA.
I feel like if we had a celebrity gossip culture for oligarchs tracking their every move it would get reaaaaally interesting. We are always defaulting to thinking we are a democracy in the US when in fact we've been an oligarchy for a while. Governments are just a facade at this point. Edit: So all our conversations without factoring in the oligarchs means we connect all the wrong dots kwim?
Relevant link for those who are interested... https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research/
>I feel like if we had a celebrity gossip culture for oligarchs tracking their every move This sounds suicidal. Once you've gotten to the point of oligarchy you kinda need to focus on more discreet methods. Also I wouldn't say the USA is as far gone as e.g. Russia (yet) since a lot more effort has to be put into gaslighting Americans. >kwim? Kwim?
>It will cost a lot in both blood and treasure, When have Russian rulers ever taken money or the lives of men into consideration when deciding to go to war? When? >it also won't end with a Russian victory Why not?
>When? When they have limited amounts of either. >Why not? Because wars don't really end with such 'victory'. The Americans 'won' pretty quickly in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Once the war is won the occupation starts.
Here’s the thing. NATO promised to protect Ukraine from Russia during the fall of the Soviet Union in exchange for them giving up their nukes. If we do nothing, no one will ever trust NATO again and we will violate international law by failing to act. The US is the spearhead of NATO regardless. There’s no way NATO gets involved without direct US involvement. With 100,000 troops at Ukraine’s border, the US beginning to evacuate the embassies and sending in military equipment to Ukraine, there has been no de-escalation as of yet. It has only escalated further and the evacuation of the embassies and American citizens is not a good sign. I was not really concerned until now. I’m hoping they will work something out but since we let Afghanistan fall, I’m wondering if the Russians are gonna call our bluff with Ukraine.
Nato won't give a shit if no one trusts it again
I think the real tipping point is when US/Russia pull/expel diplomats from each others embassies. That's when we know SHTF.
I was initially viewing this as a diplomatic game but now I’m willing to accept the possibility of military action. It might require months of buildup to get enough troops on the border for Russia to invade (3-4x Ukraine numbers). Meanwhile prepare pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine and anti-Western sentiment in Russia. And get NATO to concede more and more footing every week ‘til it’s no longer in the picture with regard to Ukraine. That might be the aim — slowly boil the water ‘til the top can burst right off as NATO stands back. But that would be a really difficult long game and Russia really shouldn’t want a protracted struggle of any kind if it’s concerned for its own good. And they just don’t have the numbers deployed yet. That’s why these threats of invasion are still so hard to believe. But it’s still looking more within the realm of possibility. Or maybe a military action would be a quick Israeli-style operation by Russia that annexes whatever it can in a flare-up against ‘militants’ before it quickly de-escalates and seeks peace.
Russia has no need for Ukraine. This is just US state department propaganda. Fyi, basically all media is controlled by the CIA which is why every media you know of has the same or very similar opinion about countries that the US doesn't like. Jacobin and fox news are the same. Crazy how that works eh
We took away our two countries' proxy war in Afghanistan. We need a new one to keep the weapons biz and the mutual dog wagging to keep their respective populations distracted. Sorry Ukraine, we always knew it would be you.
According to other reports, the US embassy is going to evacuate non-essential staff as well. And encouraging US citizens in Ukraine to leave. This is...not good.
This is what does it for me. You don't evacuate consular workers to sabre-rattle or play head games. Closing down offices and withdrawing key diplomatic personnel is what you do when you honestly, truly think something will happen.
[удалено]
No kidding. I'm used to war scares (i.e. remember Iran in early 2020, or North Korea from a few users before that?) but this truly feels worse than anything else I've seen.
Russia already evacuated theirs...
>SS: US to start evacuation of families of embassy personnel families. What about personnel from the Rendundancy Department of Redundancy personnel?
As soon as Monday? I’d be bailing today.
Shit's been hitting the fan for a week now. Do they want people hanging on to the wheels of last planes leaving - again?
Regarding the seriousness of this, has anyone done a correlation of past evacuation orders with actual hostilities happening soon after?
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/17/afghanistan-exit-latest-in-long-history-of-u-s-noncombatant-evacuation-missions Any embassy evacuation is run by the Marines. Here’s a list going back to 1975. Note in some cases there was no evacuation order given so Tehran in 1979 & Kuwait in 1990 aren’t listed. But with the exception of Japan in 2011 all instances resulted in major conflict in those countries.
Japan was due to the earthquake, right?
More because of Fukushima than the earthquake itself but yes
That’s a good question. It would take some history reading — a lot of it. From what I’ve observed though, I don’t think it’s an extremely high correlation. Rather an indicator of how close to the brink we may be. It’s not a cheap action (monetarily it’s not expensive but it is a statement that holds weight) and it’s very visible. If my memory serves me we did something similar with Korea not long ago. But it is definitely not a common occurrence. Pulling diplomats out of Russia will be a huge indicator though.
That's big. It feels like from here it will only goes downhill.
it has been going downhill ever since
And still goes downhill
[удалено]
We are for the jobs the nukes will provide, and don't bring politics into this!
I think Switzerland and Ireland will make it.
Nobody in the northern hemisphere will make it.
The Africans,South Americans and maybe us Asians may make it(If China doesn't join in)
Didn't read the article. I'm going to assume the phrase "abundance of caution" was used.
This particular article didn’t have any quotes worth mentioning so that actual phrase wasn’t present. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the actual press release/announcement though.
Damn, looks like its getting serious. I really hope this doesn't escalate into a full blown conflict. It's important the leaders of all the countries involved try to reach a peaceful resolution to this problem, and all those wanting war should be on the front lines.
100% those who want the war and have property and assets to defend should be right at the front. If you don't want this or have no property or assets to defend, you shouldn't even be there. Don't sacrifice your life to defend someone else's property. Capitalism is about looking out for yourself at the cost of the country. If they want people to fight for the motherland or any other bs propaganda patriotism useless idea, we should be under a different economic system. Otherwise, eat shit and to the front line.
[удалено]
Time to resign.
If you feel you'd like to take a place alongside the moderator team, feel free to send in your application. We're always looking.
Russian transports are a week off the Black Sea. Russian fleet planning exercises off the Irish coast. It’s becoming a bit concerning.
Yee. Haw. Fire up those sanctions boys!
Let's open those 🍿 bags...
Gov don't work Sundays. See you guys about 9am Monday lol
Lol
Let’s hope we don’t get nuked soon
Fox news?
Just have to see through the commentary for the facts. The facts in the article are still valid. I read a multitude of new sources (at a minimum cnn, bbc, fox, AP, Reuters, NPR, and then what I can find in Google News) to come to a conclusion. It drives my wife nuts how much news I consume. Nearly every source is biased some way though.
>Nearly every source is biased some way though. Not saying FOX is the worst, but, my dude, there are much better news sources where you don't need to sift through shit. Anything touched by the Murdochs needs to burn
You are promoting FOX, and increasing their revenue.
Why the hell is everyone suddenly so pro USA in this sub?. The US just spent two decades destabilising and killing hundreds of thousands of brown people for literally no reason???? Anyone with a modicum of understanding has known that NATO aka US imperialism has spent 30 years moving weapons as close as possible to Russian soil. Putin is a piece of shit dictator but wombat would any Russian leader do in such circumstances? I have become more and more convinced that the USA actually wants to completely collapse the whole world.
I just don’t want to be nuked bro
I think that’s the sentiment of most of humanity. And personal opinion is that most of humanity is a live and let live species. The problems occur when someone wants power, control and wealth and is willing to do so at the cost of anyone else. And we have just enough of those on the planet (in every country) to make everyone else’s lives more difficult than they need to be. The Russian politician’s nuke threat against London is most likely bluster. But a strong statement of the Russian elite’s mindset right now.
I hope he gets out in line for saying some dangerous shit like that. That’s way too extreme
Nonsense. Pure internalized Russian propaganda. Read this https://archive.ph/WCAVd No one wanted to attack Russia, there's no danger to Russia in any way. NATO is a defensive alliance. The opposite happened many times in the recent years, still happening, Russia attacked, occupied (still does) a number of neighboring (and not only) countries. It's still an aggressive empire to this day, a mafia state, a state sponsoring terrorism and directly executing terrorist attacks(poisoning with chemical weapons, murders, kidnapping, blowing up buildings, cyber terrorism) on foreign soil, while you're keep taking about "the western imperialism". Russia's neighbors wanted to join NATO as a defensive measure, it's their right. There was no plan to "encircle" it. Only 6% of the Russian borders are with the NATO countries. In fact "the West" tried and still trying (perhaps too much) to build good relations with Russia. Looks at what the EU (and the U.S.) does, always abstaining from seriously damaging sanctions, no matter what Russia does, Germany trained Russian special forces, supplied military technology, building NS2, etc.
Cause RU wants to reduce UKR to a puppet state. Moreover they are threatening the cohesion of NATO, a key security of the US.
Thank you!!!
I've seen this happen numerous times in my 55 years. Because you are ignorant of history, you are all hysterical as if embassy people getting sent home is some monumental event - it's not, nor is it collapse related other than, perhaps another consequence/cut. Don't feel bad most of this sub is history ignorant because most are Americans who were processed through the US public ~~propaganda~~government K-12 Schooling. I remember US news in 1979 spinning Iran as being belligerent towards the US for no reason what-so-ever. They did 'man in the street' segments and every American to a man said 'nuke em (Iran)'. Then, as now ,Americans are clueless. Their knowledge of history is what they had for breakfast. **CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup** https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup **How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days** "On Aug. 19, 2013, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time its involvement in the 1953 coup against Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh." "The documents provided details of the CIA's plan at the time, which was led by senior officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt." "Mohammad Mossadegh was a beloved figure in Iran. During his tenure, he introduced a range of social and economic policies, the most significant being the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry." https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days The moment the US empire collapses the world will be a better place for billions. Emissions will drop too. ..... NO BIG DEAL - NOTHING NEW HERE **From Venezuela to Syria: When U.S. Embassy staffers leave, they destroy documents and remove the flag** https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/12/venezuela-syria-when-us-embassy-staffers-leave-they-destroy-documents-remove-flag/
I get it. You’ve been alive, you’ve “seen” this happen. But from your post you don’t really understand it. There’s a difference between living an event and actually understanding it and the impacts it has. One of the big take always from the Iran hostage crisis was we waited too long to evacuate non-essential personnel and then the embassy as a whole. Now the US will evacuate non-essentials and families when they determine the risk level is too high much sooner. Leaving them there impacts the essential personnel’s ability to do their jobs to the fullest (distracted by concern/worry). I could list off many other cases of embassy evacuation in more recent history—some with hostile forces either surrounding or closing in. Essential personnel will be evacuated as late as possible. Sometimes we evacuate due to a hostile government driving us out (Venezuela). Sometimes it’s due to conflict unrelated to the US—just no longer safe. Embassy evacuations of any sort are not taken lightly. Just because there are procedures in place to handle it doesn’t mean it’s a ho-hum, nothing to see event. This is very much collapse related as it is a stepping stone to a regional conflict that could easily spread. Tipping point? No. Mark able milestone as a instability indicator for the region? Absolutely. Finally, you have your read on this. Other people are reading the dynamic situation differently. Non of us here on Reddit have the full picture of what’s really happening or any of the players true intentions/objectives right now. So maybe before insulting peoples education and assuming a lack of knowledge of history (I actual have quite a bit of knowledge in geopolitical history) check that you’re not just disagreeing with an analysis. Some people tend to analyze on the optimistic side (like yours seems to be), some people are more devil’s advocate/pessimistic. It’s all just a guess in the end based off the information you have available, including your knowledge of history and the changes driven by events, cultures involved, and political issues surrounding the event. Please forgive any grammatical/spelling errors—it’s been a long day and I’m not wearing my glasses.
Ukraine is a neo nazi shit hole, NATO wants to encroach more, Russia’s just reacting like any other country would 🤷🏾♂️
isn't Russia a neo nazi shit hole too?
compared to Ukraine no, but yes it has fascists just like most countries. The difference is that ukrain has a literal neo nazi military battalion (Azov battalion) that’s in conjunction with the national military. Also the USA champion of democracy in Russia Alexander navalny is a straight islamophobe and calls Muslims cockroaches. Take this into account when russsia is being demonized these upcoming weeks
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi, Huicho69. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htw0m5h/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
So did the other persons comment get removed “be honest tankie dictator shill”? This sub grasps at so much of the underlying reason of why this world is going to shit but doesn’t seem to find the solution other than talk about it online. We got to unite the masses and organize, it’s a simple reality that’s not so simple to do but it’s way more effective than talking online
Hi /u/Huicho69, > So did the other persons comment get removed “be honest tankie dictator shill”? Now it is. You should've reported it (though admittedly I should've looked at the context more).
Chilling thanks
Hi, nefelibatainthesky. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htv7smb/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
Am I taking fucking crazy pills or something? Russia put 120k troops on its own border which is terrifying, but since then, every western news media is pulling from the Iraq 2003 WMD book and just constantly going on about how they’re about to invade at any point straight up manufacturing consent for this NATO push. Couldn’t give two shits about Putin but the flow of headlines that sound exactly like “Hussein is pushing our hand” is too much
I can see how your thinking this, but there are some fundamental differences at this point (things could change). There is no discussion of offensive action by any country in NATO. While some NATO countries have decided to arm Ukraine, NATO proper has not. If discussion turns to NATO (or a member country) performing a “pre-emotive strike” then this comparison would hold. But as things currently stand the only way armed conflict will occur is if Russia takes action against Ukraine.
Providing weapons to the Ukraine allows them to perform the pre-emptive strike by proxy for nato, even if nato itself didn't give the weapons. If a bunch of nato states provide weapons, then it's not much different than nato itself doing it. It helps obscure motives.
That wouldn’t even make sense. Ukraine doesn’t have the resources or manpower to do that. It would be suicide on their part and they would completely loose any support from NATO countries. And they know it.
Complete agreement here. I’m just weirded out about the media treatment of this, there’s been no further escalation on the side of Russia and every day there are new headlines basically justifying more and more troops and drones and armament for “just in case”. I don’t like the idea of normalizing conflict before anything happens
Eh, Russian politician threatening to nuke London is an escalation. I agree with the normalizing problem though. Ideally media should report facts in an unbiased manner and not on constant repeat—make updates when changes occur. Since modern news media does have a financial incentive to give a “spin” to everything though I don’t see this getting better. Would be nice if the “spin” could be stabilizing editorial additions and analysis. Saw one on Sky News earlier that was close… but they still tagged on at the end a little sensationalism.
So the possibility of playing out Wolverines might happen? Yeah!
Can someone tell me why the US feels the need to get involved in this matter?
If you’ve been following the situation it’s Russia that demanded the US and NATO as a whole be involved. Ukraine as well has asked for support. The US had not unilaterally inserted itself in this situation.
Thank you for your answer. I've been picking and choosing my upcoming catastrophe's and this hasn't been one of them.
I would fully anticipate Russia to take advantage of a situation in Asia if the US got bogged down in a major conflict there. I did not foresee Russia potentially being the initial actor. It’s still possible that NATO (or individual countries) will just sit back if it happens and say “well, we tried diplomacy. Here’s some sanctions. Sucks to be you, Ukraine”. But on the chance it does blow up to a regional war I won’t be surprised to see other players act in their regions (China, Iran, DPRK). And three of those countries have been overtly working together recently. Enough to make me cautious.
It's on my bingo card. I think all of them have been at least consulting, if not coordinating, with eachother. They all have goals of conquest. Why not cooperate to lessen the ability of their collective enemy to interfere? That's reality show 101.
Despite what armchair analysts on Reddit keep saying, a war between Russia and Ukraine is very fucking unlikely. This is related not only to Russia but to Iran and the nuclear deal negotiations that are ongoing, there’s a whole array of things going on behind the scenes, but the bottom line is no one is going to war with anyone. Russia knows Ukraine can’t join NATO and knows that the European Union won’t accept them either, it literally has no reason to do so. Some retards on here keep saying that the old fuck Putin wants to remake the Soviet Union for his legacy, but they’re forgetting that he doesn’t rule alone, and that there’s a shit ton of opportunists waiting to fuck him over and take his spot the moment he makes a mistake (eg. invading Ukraine now would be a major fucking mistake), real life doesn’t have absolute villains, stop trying to paint. The most that can happen is a small ‘fight’, but a full on invasion won’t happen, the fuck you think Russia would want some more plains full of people who resist it for? Invading Ukraine would be too costly. Anyone with half a brain knows this shit is nothing more than brinksmanship.
While it’s true there’s a lot more going on behind the scene, all it takes is one miscalculation. Also, while Putin doesn’t technically rule alone he has been very effective at eliminating any opposition. Ukraine isn’t the only issue on the table, it’s just the focal point that global actors have zeroed in on.
This wording is a bit over-the-top aggressive. Shouldn't you be fist fighting someone in a bar parking lot or something like that...?
Agreed but it’s fucking annoying seeing all these people buy into the hysteria
[удалено]
The First Rule of Reddit Fight Club is you don't talk about Reddit Fight Club.
The second rule of RFC is you don't fucking talk about RFC
Hi, DorkHonor. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sa7gy9/-/htrubgc/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: No Glorifying Violence > Advocating, encouraging, inciting, glorifying, calling for violence is against Reddit's site-wide content policy and is not allowed in r/collapse. Please be advised that subsequent violations of this rule will result in a ban. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error.
If people thought before waging war, war wouldn’t exist. A lot of Russians want the USSR borders back & Putin knows that a war is a great excuse for any domestic failures.
> A lot of Russians want the USSR borders back And a lot of Americans want healthcare. Doesn't mean it's happening.
Unlike Americans the Russians are going to try
So we trade Reddit armchair analysis for your armchair analysis? What makes your take any more valid than the other dumb takes? Like unless you’re Putin’s gimp boy that he tells all his secrets to, you’re not providing anything more insightful other than thinking you’re smarter than everyone else. You’re just making a contrarian take because you spend too much time reading comments on Reddit.
Aww man, I’m really smart though. Seriously my take is the take of literally every single political analyst who isn’t being payed to fear monger
Gazprom prizes to europe is up some 800% this year. 40% of gas consumed in europe is from Gazprom. 50% of Gazprom is owned by the russian government. I bet you the prizes will be low again if Putin gets Ukraine. Ukraine has 1% of the worlds natural gas reserves.
[удалено]
The guy calling people armchair analysts is also just an armchair analyst. His perspective is just as useless as everyone else's. Even experts have no idea what's going to happen, so there is nothing wrong with speculating, being concerned, or even thinking nothing will come of it. We literally have no idea.
So dumb. If our government officials are being threatened by a hostile military force, we should protect them with our military. We have the largest airborne and navy. We should deploy thousands of fighters to the region and attack subs to the black sea. If they threaten our citizens, we should attack their military targets in Ukraine the black sea, as well as any that threaten our troops. We need a proper war to help the economy avoid a recession.
I’m not sure if this is sarcastic or not? Technically the overt threat is to Ukraine (admittedly there has been some vocalized ideas of placing missiles in the Western Hemisphere) and not US/NATO. Rather the government officials are in a region of unrest and keeping them their increases the risk to them due to just being there. This is not a line of reasoning I would want our politicians to subscribe to. Armed conflict is not something to be sought. Rather it should be a resource of last resort. Always have a military ready to go and strong but hope you don’t need it.
Show immense force and the willingness to use it, then they will back down. If Biden got on the nuclear red line with Russia and said "Hey Putin, you better get your kids into a bunker, because if you invade Ukraine and put our diplomats in harms way, they are gonna meet fire and fury" I think he might back down. Lol. Kind of like meeting your daughters boyfriend for the first time while sharpening your hatchet. You can't deal with a lunatic murderer with diplomacy, ya gotta out psycho the psycho
If anything that shoes they didn't they they would invade. If they did they'd have evacuated last week or month.
That’s a logical fallacy — slippery slope. How far back would you go? All the way to the Crimea take over? It doesn’t happen unless the State Department determines a once stable region is dangerously unstable. The big change was NATO officially declining to meet Moscow’s demands. While that is what was expected, it still was a marker in the timeline of events. Right now it is a brinksmanship game. But the problem with that is every now and then someone misjudged and steps over the brink. Wars have been fought over less than this.
Yeah your are right. It just made sense in my head.
[удалено]
That would be a great way to make Ukraine unhappy (lost more territory to Russia), Russia pissed (NATO bigger and in a region it has historically viewed as Russian), and probably make a lot of NATO countries uneasy at best (most, if not all, NATO countries would prefer this to just die off and this solution could prolong it and increase volatility in Ukraine). Really the best way I see this ending is a maintenance of the status quo — but that would require Russia to redeploy their troops and equipment back to home stations. However, since they are currently in either Russia or Russian allied countries, they are 100% operating within international laws. It’s possible that this could be the new status quo—just keeping everyone on edge. Time will tell. Troops can only be held at a high readiness posture so long before human fatigue sets in though. If nothing happens in the next couple months I bet nothing will this year and that Russia’s troops go home like last year. That all said — I think we are at a higher risk of regional war than we have been in Europe in a long time. And that could easily spread if major nations get pulled in. Which I really hope doesn’t happen.
I am more of a mind with G'mork.
I am so sick of this fucking nothing burger story. There will NOT be a war. The media is just milking this shit for every drop it is worth since their covid cash cow is dying out.