Reuters reporter.
The convoy is longer than the distance from the convoy to Kyiv.
Is the convoy moving at all? I thought it was only a 2.5 hour drive from the border to Kyiv.
This is what I am saying. Is it a convoy or a parking lot?
They remembered the food and fuel, but didn’t bring enough dimes.
I have a feeling this convoy is going to get longer every day until it stretches all the way back to the Urals.
I mean, I’m sure this is serious and scary and bad, but I really don’t understand the reports at all, and I don’t know why all we are getting is reports about the length of the baggage train. Where are they? How fast are they traveling? When will they arrive? What sort of vehicles?
There are 200 tactical nuclear gravity bombs based in a few sites in Western Europe. But your comparison was to the Cuban Missile Crisis, except for the unfortunate fact that it’s not like that in any way and in fact there aren’t even any missiles. So, great comparison!
What else were you doing if that wasn’t justifying?
Well, Putin doesn’t act alone. But if you mean, parties outside the Russian government, then no.
Seriously though, it is likely moving very slow. You get enough vehicles together and there are going to be break downs and whatnot. It does not look like 6 lane superhighways that they are traversing. It’s probably like trying to get to south Tahoe from the bay for Christmas but worse. A ton of routes that eventually lead to one two lane highway and somebody is bound to break down on it.
Speaking of which, don’t go into the bathroom — I just dispatched a 40-mile convoy of my own.
These days it feels like there is both a sheer overabundance and crucial shortage of journalism. There are 1,000 24/7 liveblogs running of Ukraine, but none of them have the knowledge or resources to answer any of these follow up questions.
What kind of evidence would assure you that Russia wouldn’t be invading Ukraine?
My argument is that if there was no NATO expansion, there would be no Russian invasion. If the justification of the invasion is your point of view, we can argue about it.
This is not entirely accurate. In 2008, it was stated that Ukraine will join NATO, but there was no set date.
[quote=“Houngan, post:4650, topic:133719”]
The only reason Ukraine would consider joining NATO is to hold off Russian aggression, which seems to be a decent idea these days.[/quote]
There was no Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2008.
I understand the desire of Eastern European countries to join NATO. But there is a big difference between wanting to join NATO and being admitted to NATO. Ask Ukraine.
If NATO doesn’t have any expansionist ideas, why does it expand?
How do you define a threat? Was the pre-invasion troops concentration a threat? Russia was saying it wasn’t. And if we agree that a threat is the potential to do damage, not necessarily a verbally expressed statement, then NATO is a threat to Russia. It’s a threat to everyone. It’s the greatest power in the world.
Joining NATO is easier said that done. Again, ask Ukraine.
No. Both Poroshenko and Zelensky want to talk to Putin. Talk to the heads of the separatist regions, don’t blow them up. These are your people. They are Ukrainians.
I agree. But Ukrainian government avoided any talks with Donbass for 8 years, even though they were a part of Minsk agreements.
First of all, hope your families are ok in Ukraine.
It comes back to the “Russia has legitimate security concern” argument.
The ideal case I think between Russia and Ukraine would be like US and Canada (from the rest of the world’s perspective). Canada knows its place (sorry Canadians) but the relationship is defined by friendship, not suspicion. Canadians never have to worry about being invaded by US (except pesky truckers). Because US stopped trying to push the border up.
The ball is in Russia’s court to be magnanimous and open its arms to its Ukrainian brothers and sisters. If you pull them the natural reaction is to pull away. It is just human psychology. I am not trying to lecture Russians or Ukrainians on how to behave, I’m just saying if you intimidate, the natural reaction is to resist rather than submit. It is just human nature.
Putin’s own words, especially his most recent speech, kind of refute that. If we read what he has said and written over the years NATO expansion is not the impetus. The SSRs should have never been split off is one of his main themes. He wants to get the band back together. NATO expansion only plays in as far as making that difficult. At best you might argue he’s invading Ukraine because he can’t invade the far easier to take Baltic states first.
Yes, of course. I’ve been in armored road marches before.
But that doesn’t answer the obvious questions. Was the change from 3 miles to 17 miles to 40 miles more vehicles, more straggling, or both? How many tanks and IFVs vs supply trucks? And so on.
Yes, I guess that’s what I’m feeling. Somebody please answer the obvious questions. Or at least ask them.
Maybe, but you could also argue that no NATO expansion might have resulted in more Russian invasions. Mutual defense agreements can prevent wars.
I have a theory based on nothing more than hope that it’s because the receiving end is a total logistical clusterfuck and everyone was told to hit the road with no real plan for what to do with them at the end of it.
All those low MPG vehicles idling have to be great for the fuel supply.
What kind of evidence would convince you the invasion has nothing to do with NATO expansion?
I guess the main thrust is, you join NATO to relax, not to invade. Countries joining NATO are like housewives joining the Lion’s Club, it’s an agreement to be friends. To bounce it back, has NATO forcibly taken over a state? Hell, could be! I’m not that much of an EU political scholar, but by and large NATO is an agreement that states be left alone, at the threat of the rest of the states jumping in.
So, to your question, another: If Ukraine and Belarus (why not?) and Finland join NATO, are you actually worried that NATO will launch some sort of attack against Russia?
Hence my comment about Putin’s promises. Putin would not be content with withdrawing his forces from Ukraine now even if NATO signed a bleeping “no further expansion” treaty with Russia tomorrow. He’s still historically butthurt because the Soviet Union was dissolved after the East Germans took their destiny in their hands in November of 1989 after some truly Keystone Cops miscommunication/misstatements by East German officials over a couple of days (seriously, read about how it went down, it’s comical almost), leading to the people of other WP countries thinking, “yeah, we want that too.” And some of those countries went on to join NATO. Too bad so sad, get over it. As long as Russia has nukes enough to blow us all to hell, NATO is NOT going to invade Russia, FULL. STOP. Nor is Ukraine (snort). So stop fucking worrying about it.
But no, Putin is not happy with that. He wants to the the Tsar of more than he currently surveys, which means he wants a puppet back in Kyiv, hence the “de-Nazification” invasion (read: invade, install puppet regime). Also BTW, he wants all ex WP countries out of NATO. You know, just a small thing.
This made me randomly LOL. Not that you’re wrong, I just like the phrasing.
NATO the Club Med of alliances.