quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
The story of the P-8 was actually linked here months ago...

This link is broken due to a "right caret" you have at the end of it.

Here's a working link: https://www.monkeywerxus.com/b...2-pipeline-sabotage/

Ah, thanks; corrected it in my post.

In general, the more people scrutinize the text, the more shoddily researched/checked the Norwegian part seems. Like NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, born in 1959, "who had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War"; that's some real dedication for a teenager. The whole dropping a sonobuoy to trigger the charges thing also doesn't explain why the first detonated exactly 17 hours before the three others 40 nautical miles away. Maybe the timers at both sites were set that way, but it's another question not asked.

Overall, the story would have been a lot more believable without involving Norway. Still based upon a single anonymous source and leaving you puzzled why anyone would take the huge political risk to blow up a functionally already-dead pipeline; but more people would have wondered if those crazy American cowboys wouldn't have done it anyway. Yet someone had to overegg the pudding by implicating additional NATO allies.

quote:

Still based upon a single anonymous source and leaving you puzzled why anyone would take the huge political risk to blow up a functionally already-dead pipeline

Well, POTATUS...'functionally already-dead' in the head (and surrounded by idiots!), essentially threatened to do so, as did a number of others at the US State Department. This group, and the many currently 'in charge' in the US .gov/.mil don't exactly have a good track record of sound judgement/decision making so actually, it's really not that much of a stretch when you think about it. In fact, it's a seemingly obvious conclusion! Also, though they seem to have MUCH experience in doing so, they're demonstrably NOT very good liars in denying it either!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Still based upon a single anonymous source and leaving you puzzled why anyone would take the huge political risk to blow up a functionally already-dead pipeline

Well, POTATUS...'functionally already-dead' in the head (and surrounded by idiots!), essentially threatened to do so, as did a number of others at the US State Department. This group, and the many currently 'in charge' in the US .gov/.mil don't exactly have a good track record of sound judgement/decision making so actually, it's really not that much of a stretch when you think about it. In fact, it's a seemingly obvious conclusion! Also, though they seem to have MUCH experience in doing so, they're demonstrably NOT very good liars in denying it either!

Yep. Just watch old man Biden trying to act tough. He has screaming fits and then he whispers and he thinks both make him look tough. Yeah, I'm pretty sure we are responsible.

I'm sure that's a completely sufficient explanation for an audience conditioned by either the contemporary domestic American political culture of hyperpolarization and conspiracy thought, or the anti-Americanism which that domestic American distrust towards the government of the day, or in general, translates to internationally. The article is clearly aimed towards such readers with bits like "Tensions were constantly escalating between Russia and NATO, backed by the aggressive foreign policy of the Biden Administration", while neglecting to mention the aggressive Russian policy and grievances going back three previous US administrations.

There was the 2002 US withdrawl from the ABM Treaty and plans to put missile defense sites into Eastern Europe against threats from Middle Eastern actors; the 2004/05 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, which Russia already thought was a Western-inspired coup and responded to with gas supply cuts and an ongoing Soviet-style disinfo campaign playing to the resentments in the US and the West mentioned above, depicting Putin as a savior from Western liberal decadence; the 2008 Russian-Georgian War; obviously the 2014 intervention in Ukraine with the annexation of Crimea and support of the separatists in the east; the threats against any NATO country and possible membership candidate calling for and getting more support, because they feared they might be next; and the late 2021 Russian demands for NATO to essentially abandon its Eastern European members and withdraw to its pre-1997 territory,

The latter were made while the troop buildup on Ukraine's borders was nearing completion, and ostentatively phrased to be unacceptable to make a case for "well if you don't accept our legitimate security interests, everything that follows is on you". The only "non-aggressive" approach the Biden administration could have pursued from that perspective is rolling back American policy of at least the previous eight years - the troop rotations into Eastern Europe, the demands for allies to increase their defense spending, standing with those Eastern Europeans who were among the NATO partners which had actually aligned most with US wishes by being closest to the spending goal, providing sites for missile defense, contributing troops not just to the War on Terror but also the controversial Iraq adventure, etc. For anyone outside the intended target audience, that's just not a realistic proposition though.

Neither would they read any more into circumstancial evidence like Biden saying "If Russia invades ... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2" than what actually happened: Russia invaded, and Germany immediately put a stop to Nord Stream 2, as clearly agreed between Biden and Olaf Scholz on the occasion mentioned. And by the time the charges were allegedly planted, much less detonated, all the reasoning of "Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia" given for the planning (which, again, might well have happened) had evaporated. Which is why there's a distinct lack of outrage over here, where people should be most outraged; except for both the left and right fringe, which obviously fall within the anti-American target audience and are lapping up the "revelations", few are really buying it.

An excellent concise discussion, BansheeOne. Thanks for an explanation that anyone who is actually interested in the recent history of Ukraine, Putin’s aggressive policies, and the area should take the few minutes to read.

NATO expanding into central and eastern Europe is about those nations, after escaping Moscow's control, want nothing to do with Russia ever again. NATO didn't go to those nations and demand they join. Those nations went to NATO and begged to become members. Russia can whine about protecting their boarders all they want, but last I checked, it was Russia violating the borders of her neighbors, not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
NATO expanding into central and eastern Europe is about those nations, after escaping Moscow's control, want nothing to do with Russia ever again.
....
Russia can whine about protecting their boarders all they want, but last I checked, it was Russia violating the borders of her neighbors, not the other way around.

Russia has been involved in eight military engagements of note, and a whole bunch of other conflicts and skirmishes throughout Central Asia, North Caucasus and Eastern Europe, the majority of them are former Soviet-states 'requesting' Russian 'assistance' to put-down an insurgency, of whom the opposition was looking to move away from Russian influence.

1990 Transistrian (Moldovian-Russian) War
1992 Tajikistani Civil War
1994 First Chechen War
1999 Second Chechen War
2008 Georgian-Russian War
2015 Syrian Civil War
2018 Central African Republic Civil War
2022 Russia-Ukrainian War

Missing a few.
Like Russia invading and annexing Crimea in 2014.
or the 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia.
or FSB agents using Polonium-210 to assassinate dissidents in western countries. I wonder if the bar where the first guy was killed in London was ever able to re-open. I know for several years after it was to hot for humans to be exposed too.

NATO's expansion was not because the West wanted to threaten Russia. But former Soviet occupied nations wanting the protection from Moscow. I severed with a couple of officers from the Baltic nations when I was at EUCOM. It was clear that they have no desire personally and professionally what so ever to be subject to Moscow's control again. Putin has stated the worst catastrophe in the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. And he wants to Russia to return to that power. And that rise in power will come at the expense of those former USSR members, and the desire to have buffer states to keep those decadent capitalist pigs away from the glorious Russian nations.

I do wonder if NATO did agree to return to the pre-97 borders is Russia would respect the Budapest Memorandum, with Russia is a signatory too, and return eastern Ukraine and Crimea back to Kiev? Seeing how Putin has already honored it and other treaties, I wouldn't be expecting him to honor his word anytime soon.

Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

Russia wasn't "in" Crimea, they leased a naval base there. They also sent in an armed military to seize it and then claimed it was part of their territory, which is, yes, an invasion of Crimea.

Incidentally, one could also reasonably conclude that eastern European countries were banging on NATO's door and begging for entry because of Russia's history of violent and unprovoked "expansion", and that Crimea was fraudulently annexed because Russia doubted its own ability to take Ukraine in one go and decided to try to take it piecemeal.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

Russia also has a history of ruling the lands known as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Khazakstan, etc...should we just sit by and let them take them over because of, history?
Putin's entire premise for their adventures since the disillusionment of the Soviet Union, is we've been there since forever, so it's ours, never mind the wishes of the inhabitants of those place who want nothing to do with Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

Russia also has a history of ruling the lands known as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Khazakstan, etc...should we just sit by and let them take them over because of, history?
Putin's entire premise for their adventures since the disillusionment of the Soviet Union, is we've been there since forever, so it's ours, never mind the wishes of the inhabitants of those place who want nothing to do with Russia.

And now pull the thread and you'll understand why all those central and eastern European nations are screaming to join NATO.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

Russia also has a history of ruling the lands known as Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Khazakstan, etc...should we just sit by and let them take them over because of, history?
Putin's entire premise for their adventures since the disillusionment of the Soviet Union, is we've been there since forever, so it's ours, never mind the wishes of the inhabitants of those place who want nothing to do with Russia.

My comment was about Crimea, and Crimea only! Regardless, it's not as cut & dry as you (and others) would make it out to be:

quote:

If you had to give a one-word answer to what this Ukraine War is about, you would probably say Crimea. Crimea is a peninsula jutting out into the middle of the Black Sea. It’s where the great powers of Europe fought the bloodiest war of the century between Napoleon and World War I. It is a defensive superweapon. The country that controls it dominates the Black Sea and can project its military force into Europe, the Middle East, and even the steppes of Eurasia. And since the 1700s, that country has been Russia. Crimea has been the home of Russia’s warm water fleet for 250 years. It is the key to Russia’s southern defenses.

Crimea found itself within the borders of Ukraine because in 1954, the year after Stalin died, his successor Nikita Khrushchev signed it over to Ukraine. Historians now hotly debate why he did that. But while Crimea was administratively Ukrainian, it was culturally Russian. It showed on several occasions that it was as eager to break with Ukrainian rule as Ukraine was to break with Russian rule. In a referendum in January 1991, 93 percent of the citizens of Crimea voted for autonomy from Ukraine. In 1994, 83 percent voted for the establishment of a dual Crimean/Russian citizenship. We’ll leave aside the referendum held after the Russians arrived in 2014, which resulted in a similar percentage but remains controversial.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu...-of-the-ukraine-war/

Well, as long as we're considering the 'wishes of the inhabitants'...

And yet only a minority of Ukraine is culturally Russian, and a majority of Crimeans voted along with the rest of Ukraine for both complete independence of Russia and for Crimea to be a part of that independent Ukraine.

Even then, to refer back to corsair's point, the "culturally Russian" people in the far east of the country were planted there - first by Lenin, then by Stalin - to control the more resource-rich parts of the country as well as to create a "Russian people" in Ukraine so that Putin could pretend he was saving the "culturally Russian" from the rest of Ukraine.

Which, by the way, proves that even the Russians don't think Ukraine is "culturally" Russian, or Russian in any other sense - why else would Putin distinguish between a "Russian" group that is distinctly a minority within Ukraine?

You might have also noticed that the Russians have made a point of driving out the Tatar majority in Crimea, which has been universally in favor of keeping Crimea in Ukraine. They've done exactly what they openly did in Donesk and Luhansk - driving out anyone who disagrees with them and then resting their claims to legitimacy on an election by the pro-Russians permitted to stay under the auspices of - wait for it! - the Russian Army.

Standing by for the specious propaganda-based argument that Ukraine "never actually existed", despite having been founded before Moscow or Russia itself, despite having its own distinct pre-history and history, and despite having developed its own distinct language and culture from a time before "Muscovy" existed and when "Russia" wasn't so much as a concept.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
And yet only a minority of Ukraine is culturally Russian, and a majority of Crimeans voted along with the rest of Ukraine for both complete independence of Russia and for Crimea to be a part of that independent Ukraine.

When? Got a link to back any of that. Per the link that I posted, 93% voted for autonomy FROM Ukraine! A few years later they voted for dual citizenship, so again, Autonomy FROM Ukraine! Exactly when did the VAST Majority of Crimeans have this change of heart you speak of?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Even then, to refer back to corsair's point, the "culturally Russian" people in the far east of the country were planted there - first by Lenin, then by Stalin - to control the more resource-rich parts of the country as well as to create a "Russian people" in Ukraine so that Putin could pretend he was saving the "culturally Russian" from the rest of Ukraine.

So Lenin and Stalin 'planted' culturally Russian people in the Donbass region so that Putin could pretend the was saving the 'culturally Russian' people of the region???

[SNIP]

Not gonna waste my time with the rest. Feel free to post some corroborated facts though...

^^^ Sure. Just as soon as you start citing your sources for such bizarre claims as "Russia didn't really invade Crimea".

If you can't prove something that laughably obviously false, then you're in no position to insist that I cite sources for everything that I say. It's not my job to chase your imagination around.

So go ahead - you cite your sources and I'll cite mine.

Incidentally, I think Oliver Stone lacks the discipline and expertise to be a source - particularly since he made a chunk of his fortune through movies that "reimagine" history. You've tried to cite him as a source, though, so here's where Stone says that Russia invaded Ukraine, that it was morally wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine, and that it was stupid for Russia to invade Ukraine.
http://www.republicworld.com/w...ade-articleshow.html

^^^OK, here's my original post regarding Crimea:

quote:

Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

Source Material:

Sevastopol Naval Base
- Sevastopol Naval Base is a naval base located in Sevastopol, in the Crimean peninsula.
- The base is used by the Russian Navy, and it is the main base (HQ) of the Black Sea Fleet.
- Built by the Russian Empire 1772 -1783
- In use from 1783-present day by the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base

I subsequently quoted the following article in support of my post:

quote:

If you had to give a one-word answer to what this Ukraine War is about, you would probably say Crimea. Crimea is a peninsula jutting out into the middle of the Black Sea. It’s where the great powers of Europe fought the bloodiest war of the century between Napoleon and World War I. It is a defensive superweapon. The country that controls it dominates the Black Sea and can project its military force into Europe, the Middle East, and even the steppes of Eurasia. And since the 1700s, that country has been Russia. Crimea has been the home of Russia’s warm water fleet for 250 years. It is the key to Russia’s southern defenses.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu...-of-the-ukraine-war/

What I said, which ought to have been clear, was that it wasn't an 'invasion' per se, at least in the true sense of the word, as they were already there, in strength!

For the record, I've posted the 'Ukraine on Fire' video in support of the material contained in the Imprimus article from Hillsdale College as it's essentially a video account of much of the same material. And just to be clear, it, like the Imprimus article is a historical look at 'how we got here', NOT a justification of Russia's invasion of Ukraine!

^^^ As has been pointed out, Russia has been leasing that base from Ukraine. They don't own it.

Would it be OK if we just decided to take over all of Okinawa because we have Kadena there? We've been there for decades, so....

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^OK, here's my original post regarding Crimea:

It seems to me that nothing you cited contradicted what has already been said - Russia was merely renting a naval base in Crimea from Ukraine at the time that Russia invaded that part of Ukraine (thus the rent payments) that is known as Crimea.

Again, I don't have much faith in Oliver Stone as a source - there's no evidence that he's either a historian or particularly versed in the history of Ukraine. But whether you cite him as a source for one idea or another, are you now saying he has no or limited credibility on the subject? Why is one thing he said credible but the other thing he said NOT credible?

Maybe Oliver Stone just isn't a good source for any information at all.