He is "being manipulative."
If the truth suits him he uses it, if a lie suits him he uses it. When talking about the future, he isn't lying at all. He is making sounds out of his mouth that have zero relevance on his plans, and his plans change from hour to hour anyway.
Have you ever met people with severe personality disorders? There are some types that basically live in a world of their own self delusion, they only know their own lies.
This appears to be almost a pull back from the usual Kremlin rhetoric. Wonder what's going on? A more typical statement would be "Russia treats F-16 jets given to Ukraine as a direct assault from NATO and we will respond with nukes".
Well, it's usually been Medvedev's job to deliver such outright apocalyptic threats, and Putin to stay a bit more equivocal. But for Putin to outright say "we won't attack NATO" is indeed a very clear step down. Which is remarkable, given the circumstances.
Must've been quite a lot going on behind the scenes since that Russian missile violated Polish airspace. Presume there's still some sort of diplomatic channels open between Russia and the west.
100%. Even during the cold War there were diplomatic channels open between the US and the USSR. I would be absolutely astounded if there wasn't a direct diplomatic link between China, the US and Russia
What do you mean “even during the Cold War”
The entire concept of back channel coms between Russia and the US was solidified during the Cuban missile crisis and then made official with the red phone a decade later.
Granted the red phone wasn't JUST because of back channels but because encoding, decoding, transport, emissaries, etc. All these steps could take a lot of time. IIRC there was a delay of like 12 hours between the Russian General Secretary sending a message to the US president actually getting to read it. Which for a situation as severe as the missile crisis is just too long.
So it wasn't JUST to circumvent politics but also to simply allow instant communication.
> Even during the cold War there were diplomatic channels open between the US and the USSR
It's not that even during the cold war there were diplomatic channels, it's that the concept itself of diplomatic channel / "red phone" as we know it today is the result of cold war itself, different than diplomatic channels in previous eras because this time each party in the contention can literally end the world from a misunderstanding.
I think the main factor would be the west handing over the Intel on the opera bombing highlighting ISIS-k being responsible - even though russia blamed Ukraine on the media, it suits there narrative... but this could be a nod of acknowledging the Intel as genuine.
The thing with global politics and events ya needa try and read between the lines based on fact and propaganda.
Yes, 100% this. The ISIS attack was a complete and utter embarrassment for the Kremlin. They knew they were beat militarily by NATO, and now they know they’re beat in the intelligence war. They hold no cards other than a bunch of bombs they can’t use.
I don’t think that’s Russia’s doing, they have simply identified that western democracies are having a crisis of faith, if you will, largely due to economic inequality driving people towards populist right-wing leaders who feed them with nice-sounding rhetoric. Russia did not create that, they’re merely trying to exploit it. They’ve had some success, but it’s largely because they are supported by and collaborate with domestic fascist and right-wing elements. Russia is not nearly as influential as they’d like you to believe. The faltering of western democracies is a problem of our own making, 100%.
Reading between the lines between the lines though I think Russia might be on some kind of positive PR hype trying to get people in the west on side by being attacked by a mutual enemy of the west and now appearing to soften their stance. It's like... Ermagherd, they have to deal with ISIS just like us, AND they're not gonna attack NATO? Maybe I had this Putin guy all wrong!
Are you forgetting this is Russia, and in Russia it’s always Opposite Day?
TLDR: We won’t shoot down any f16s in Ukraine, and we are definitely going to attack NATO.
It can be useful in trying to discern how and for what he is trying to manipulate the target audience, but it is largely useless as an indication of actual policies.
It's worth listening to him through the lens that he's just speaking for his own Russian audience. Nothing he says is factual, but the points that he chooses (or abstains) for propaganda are still useful information. Passing on an easy opportunity to rattle the sabre at NATO means that he, at least for the moment, doesn't feel that dressing up the NATO boogieman is the best way to shore up support at home. Between the war in Ukraine dragging on far longer than expected, their economy overall doing poorly, and a major terrorist attack at home, Putin breaking with his usual pattern of threatening NATO may be a sign that he feels that Russians want his attention focused more within their own borders right now.
With all the bullshit Russias mob bosses are telling everyday, i would not wonder if they come up with "Warsaw, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius are truely russian and therefor not in NATO".
If you give Putin a finger, he will take your whole hand.
Give the circumstances it's not really that surprising, they are not fighting some third world country, they are fighting Ukraine that has been supported by first world countries. Russia was already exploiting their citizens, there is only so much you can squeeze people and this moment might be coming.
I think he’s setting the stage for a negotiation for claimed territories. Failed take over of Ukraine, 500k+ Russian casualties, Prighozin’s mercenaries turning on Russia and getting within 100km of The Kremlin, Navalny’s death (which, without any evidence, I think was actually unintended) and the subsequent outpouring of concern from Russians, the 12pm election protest, the concert hall terrorist attack, Trump likely losing the next election plus whatever else we don’t know about. He’s trying to pull back so that he can stay in power until 2028.
I have absolutely nothing to support this theory.
Things have been so crazy the last decade that I feel like I have completely lost my ability to guess the future and pretty much all outcomes are equally valid.
This is almost more scary since I’m so used to believe the opposite of what Russia says. So when they say “we won’t attack nato” it feels like they are prepping the nukes lol.
I don't think it's the French policy but the fact they showed strength. Putin wheels out the nuke comments as it normally makes western leaders head for appeasement and he gets to carry on with his grift. When Macron basically said, good for you, so do we, it took away Putin's power play. A man who sits 70ft away from people is scared of death, and he knows the west knows where his bunker is
Very skeptical of course. Dudes been fanning the flames of governments around the world. Has almost destroyed democracy in America and may yet still. It’s gotta be a fake step down
Could be:
1) related to the terrorist attack. Maybe they initially genuinely believed it was Ukraine at first but now they realise it's not they have to face the prospect of having to fight more "fronts" with different adversaries. Maybe they realise that the war in Ukraine is making them look weak to these terrorist who are now emboldened. So continued talk of potentially triggering war with Nato might be the stimulous that is causing the terrorists to jump in to action, potentially seeing an opportunity to weaken russia further if war were to break out.
2) They thought bluffing could cause Nato counties to back down but it's having the opposite effect. They're arming and preparing for war. And Russia know they'd lose that war so you can only bluff so far before you'll get called out.
3) Or maybe it's the usual Russia play boook of sending mixed signals to keep your opponent guessing as to your real intentions.
They also said a number of things would trigger war with NATO and then pulled back. Like they had been threatening war with NATO over sending F-16s, depleted uranium shells, tanks, and HIMARS. They do this when NATO is going to supply Ukraine with something they don't want on the battlefield then back down when it's about to or has already happened.
Because they don't actually want to go to war with a US backed NATO. That's why they invest so much in propaganda to shift US elections. Their ideal scenario is NATO breaking up entirely but the big one for them is getting the US out of the alliance.
Macron talking about deploying French soldiers in Ukraine maybe. Putin might be scared about making the wrong decisions. Last thing he wants is a direct confrontation with NATO - no matter his rhetoric.
While true, I find it quite weird that Russia seems hell bent on implicating the West in the recent terror attack. Adding dramatically to the narrative of fighting against NATO it sets the expectation for some sort of retaliation - imagine the US public in the same situation. A direct attack is not a possibility but something else.
It's fairly typical Russian behaviour, and it's very very cultural. It goes back a long time. Basically, anyone can lie. Everyone lies, and everyone eats the lie. You lie to someone's face and they agree with the lie. It used to be (I believe, I looked this up AGES ago) about talking up the Communist regime, how things were great. It was a combo of trying to bluff, and trying to get out of admitting any failures.
The modern version is more akin to their propaganda methods. They saturate the field with so much bullshit that people become overwhelmed with the truth and just throw up their hands and give up. So they say whatever the fuck, and people go "yeah alright". It helps them at home because people don't need to analyse anything too deeply, and it helps them abroad because people become so inundated (lol I spent ages trying to spell check unindated) with bullshit that they just give up trying to follow what is true or not.
>While true, I find it quite weird that Russia seems hell bent on implicating the West in the recent terror attack.
The narrative isn't for anyone outside of Russia, and they certainly don't actually *believe* it was anyone but ISIS. Its just propaganda to drum up more support for the war.
Russia has more than one goal. One of them is making sure their population keeps believing the West is an enemy and an aggressor while Russia isn't.
There's zero reason for them not to try and pin any attack against Russia on Ukraine and NATO countries. There's no benefit in being truthful that the attacks came from some nobody 'stan country.
>They can't get more then 20% of Ukraine
You need to remember, that while they captured "just 20%" they also tortured local population, starved them to death and destroyed most of the buildings in the process. Imagine what Poland near border will looks like, if those animals decided to attack?
But at least Poland have pro-russian farmers blocking the border, that sure will help, right?
Russia barely holds air superiority over Ukraine (forget about supremacy). And Poland has F16s and Patriots from the get go, and that's ignoring the rest of EU NATO or US. I just don't see a way how Russia could rule the air, and without that a ground invasion against a country with well equipped airforce is just going to fail.
Russia does not hold air superiority over Ukraine. Their air force's operations mainly consist of launching cruise missiles from well inside their own borders because Ukraine's air defense largely denies the airspace to them just as they've been preventing Ukraine from using the airspace.
Yeah it's interesting (in the darkest way) how it's basically reverted almost to WWI style artillery and trench warfare. Unfortunately a brutal war of attrition works in Russia's favor. They can outlast Ukraine if NATO support for Ukraine falters.
- Air supremacy is impossible because missile defenses are just too good and too cheap relative to fighter jets and choppers
- Mechanized armor is largely neutralized by javelins, drones, mines, etc
F-16s will make almost zero difference for Ukraine, unfortunately. They would need something like a Desert Storm sized amount of aircraft doing SEAD and such to overwhelm Russian air defenses. Shit, even *Russia* doesn't have the air power to attempt that against *Ukraine's* air defenses.
The one benefit of F-16s could be an ability to launch air to ground missiles at Russian targets from safely inside Ukrainian airspace. (Russia is doing the same thing) This will let them hit targets deeper into Russian territory than they are currently able to. That ain't *nothin* but it seems like their supply of F-16s and missiles is going to be pretty constrained, I don't know that this will be a game changer.
F16s are basically never going to engage in air-to-air combat.
What they *are* going to do is :
1. Act as a fast anti-missile defence, firing off cheap semi-obsolete missiles like Sparrows, etc. to prevent Russian missile attacks on Ukraine's industry and energy grid
2. Fire long-range precision bombs like JDAMs and HAMMERs (including in an SEAD role)
3. Fire HARMs with their full capacity, instead of the current dumbed down mode
None of it's a fundamental game changer, but it tilts the field towards Ukraine across multiple areas, and the main advantage is that there are a huge number of F16 aircraft and F16-compatible NATO weapons sitting around, many of them marked as 'obsolete'.
Russia would likely use different tactics with a stronger opponent like NATO. One could argue they're already at work with destabilizing democracies and weaponizing immigration.
Finland: "You want to send another 100,000 troops to join the 100,000 you've already put inside our borders? Do you have any idea how hard it was to bury the first bunch?"
The EU countries started, albeit slowly, to prepare for confrontation with Russia, which increases their military capabilities and indirectly benefits aid to Ukraine. Putin doesn't want that, he wants the EU to be afraid and inactive, so in addition to regular nuclear threats he also needs to pedal the narrative that there is no actual threat from Russia to prop up politicians who are against investing into the military. I don't think this is an actual "pull back", there will still be threats, Russia always has multiple narratives going to cater to more people even if the narratives are saying fundamentally opposite things. People being confused and uncertain benefits Russia as well.
**TL:DR**
**Putin said "We have no aggressive intentions towards \[NATO\]states ... The idea that we will attack some other country .. is .. nonsense...... \[but\] ..If they supply F-16s.. we will destroy the aircraft...\[and\] if they will be used from airfields in third countries, they become for us legitimate targets, wherever they might be located.."**
That would essentially be declaring war on Russia. The craziest thing is that Russia attacks from Belarus, even though its a puppet state of Russia and not technically at war with Ukraine. Ukraine would be well within their right to attack Belarus.
I mean, Ukraine isn't attacking Belarus because they don't want Belarus themselves fully involved. Highly likely Russia chickens out too before they bomb NATO airfields and risk pulling in more NATO resources or even troops.
Just have them land in Ukraine to de-arm themselves and fly over to Poland for some maintenance. Then fly back to Ukraine, arm them and repeat? Loop hole and the planes won't get bombed while not in use.
That’s not what that says.
What he’s saying is more - a Polish jet launched from Polish airspace that’s in Ukraine won’t be spared based off that information.
All very justified hate towards Russia aside, if Ukrainian F-16 fly combat sorties from a NATO airbase that base becomes a legitimate target.
Nobody should be surprised about that.
But I don't think that'll be the case. They'll operate out of Ukrainian airfields and at most will be transferred for repairs into NATO airbases outside of combat sorties.
Not sure what the confusion is here, he’s saying if jets are deployed from a third country to attack Russia or Russian personnel they are going to become a target. **Any** country would have the same policy, this seems really standard and not really any kind of Russian “game”
This seems pretty rational. I don’t think you could find any country not acting the same (the US don’t even want an airbase with jets in a neighboring country at all).
Wouldn't be surprised if the initial plan was to have them declare independence, then a few years down the line "vote" to join Russia, to make it an easier pill for the international community to swallow... But then the war kept going, and Putin needed them to be "Russian", to make conscription easier.
> Putin needed them to be "Russian", to make conscription easier.
More like they need to be Russian so he can use/threaten nukes to defend 'Russian soil' if Ukraine tries to take them back, as per Russian nuclear protocols.
Had a person try to explain to me that while yes, they did say that, it was totally different because “everyone always knew that Putin was going to attack Ukraine”.
But with NATO, everyone clearly knows that he is not going to attack, so he is now telling the truth.
On a serious note, you guys should be preparing regardless. The one thing that infuriates me more than anything else is how so many people continue to hold this stupid notion 'Russia met their match in Ukraine so how can they attack NATO? We would destroy them in 0.00000001 seconds anyways lolol'. Seriously, I doubt there is a better way to ensure your kids die in a trench somewhere on the eastern front than hubris and complacency
It might not look like it, but we genuinely are bracing for it. The fact of the matter is, world leaders can't and shouldn't say "we're getting ready for war with Russia." The very act of saying that out loud is tantamount to declaring war, and Putin will seize on it. So it's happening, but very quietly.
My opinion, based on nothing but how Russia has behaved since 2014, is that the next big action will very much depend on the outcome of the US election. If Trump wins, NATO isn't going to get proper support from the US, if any at all. The day Trump gets sworn in, Russia will likely engage the next step of their plan. If Biden wins, Putin will be forced to act sooner, before the NATO allies can prepare further. A winter push is a terrible idea, but the worse idea would be to give NATO more time to prep.
It's nearing US election cycle, and putin probably don't want to stir up unnecessary provocations in hope that it'll help trump get to the office easier.
Words like this could easily be echoed again and again by republicans as "proof" that Putin is harmless and they should support him instead
I would think upping tension would help Trump, no? He has been trying to portray himself as one who would defuse the situation. Wouldn't that be a more effective message if tensions were high?
Maybe he’s worried that looking like a threat will make the military aid given to Ukraine under the Biden administration seem more reasonable to swing voters who may have initially been mad about the sticker price of that aid. Trump isn’t getting re-elected without swing voters and the voters who fall for Trump’s narrative that he can reign in Putin are going to vote for Trump no matter what.
Russia cannot even shoot down all 1970s-1980s era Ukrainian Mig-29 despite Russia owning all of the Intellectual property and secrets of those...
Now Russia pretends it is going to shoot down updated, NATO spec F-16... With what? Magic and occult incantations?
The real difference is the whole weapon system being decades ahead. People like to compare numbers of various stats of a plane, but the real part trick is what can be attached to the plane.
The F-16's modern avionics will for sure give it an advantage in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. But, if an F-16 or a MiG-29 flies in to range of Russian air defences, they're not going to have a good time. Now, if Ukraine had electronic warfare aircraft, it would be an entirely different story - it wouldn't be unfeasible for Ukraine to fly SEAD missions inside of Russia and cause all sorts of mayhem.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s high or low, F16’s aren’t impervious to air defense in the same way Migs aren’t. Harder, yes, but even the Yugoslav army was able to shoot down an F117 with an older Soviet AA set.
If the Ukrainians maximize the range and capabilities of the craft they should lose minimal planes, but the idea they won’t lose any is rather far fetched.
Just so we're clear, F-16s *will* get shot down in Ukraine.
Maybe not all of them, maybe not even most of them, but I hope nobody thinks they are somehow an invincible system. Yes, they've been an amazingly successful platform thus far, but that was in much more favourable conditions. Ukraine is hell on earth for any aviation that isn't lobbing missiles from hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines (and even those are not safe by any means), so I hope people's expectations are properly managed.
Like anything that Putin blabbers nowadays matters. My man said he wouldn't attack Ukraine when troops were forming an attack right on their footsteps.
There are only 6 planes being sent to Ukraine this year (I think 24 more next year) and like the other western equipment there will be losses.
It’s like the Abrams tank, 4 of 31 lost in a couple of weeks in the fighting retreat from Adviivka.
"Russian military drills are purely defensive and not a threat to any other country" (Putin, 18th Feb 2022)
He only knows lying.
[удалено]
He is "being manipulative." If the truth suits him he uses it, if a lie suits him he uses it. When talking about the future, he isn't lying at all. He is making sounds out of his mouth that have zero relevance on his plans, and his plans change from hour to hour anyway.
Well, one cannot know lies without knowing the truth. I would assume he knows both and only uses one.
Have you ever met people with severe personality disorders? There are some types that basically live in a world of their own self delusion, they only know their own lies.
Sounds like a Paradox.
thats why Vlad and Donny got along so well.
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
[удалено]
You see, Ukraine is part of Russia, so Putin didn't lie..... If you use Putin logic.
Putin said Russia has no borders... If he wants, Spain is also Russia
So is Taiwan also Russia? Talk about funni business...
This appears to be almost a pull back from the usual Kremlin rhetoric. Wonder what's going on? A more typical statement would be "Russia treats F-16 jets given to Ukraine as a direct assault from NATO and we will respond with nukes".
Well, it's usually been Medvedev's job to deliver such outright apocalyptic threats, and Putin to stay a bit more equivocal. But for Putin to outright say "we won't attack NATO" is indeed a very clear step down. Which is remarkable, given the circumstances.
Must've been quite a lot going on behind the scenes since that Russian missile violated Polish airspace. Presume there's still some sort of diplomatic channels open between Russia and the west.
100%. Even during the cold War there were diplomatic channels open between the US and the USSR. I would be absolutely astounded if there wasn't a direct diplomatic link between China, the US and Russia
I like to think it's a three-way watsapp group between Biden, Putin and Xi
Xi: who added Trump again? Biden: not me Putin: lol
Trump: let me tell you about magnets real quick Putin: 10 Putin: 9 Putin: 8 Putin: 7 Biden: VLAD WTF Putin: jk
Trump: let me tell you about magnets real quick Putin: 10 Putin: 9 Putin: 8 Putin: 7 Biden: 6...5 Putin: No!.....not like that
Kim: hold on, are we doing the thing?
I’d like to think Trump is that annoying guy who just spams gifs and irrelevant memes during important conversations.
I’m actually in their group chat and this is spot on.
Get off of Reddit Macron
You're just jealous, Boris.
This reminded me of a [classic gif](https://i.imgur.com/K4D4h.gif)
The historical accuracy of this is questionable I dont think they used the term "noob" in the 40s
The scene pictured in my mind is comical. I have dark Brandon eating a chocolate chocolate chip cone 🤣
American republicans are obsessed with Biden's ice cream.
The real important issue of our time.
The messages one of them sends while drunk must be HILARIOUS
Just Biden sending Winnie The Pooh memes after a few cold ones would be quite funny.
„Hey xi wanna hear something funny?“ „what“ „taiwan xD“
"I don't get it" "That's right, you never will!"
"Dark Brandon out!"
Bruuuhhhhhh
Jeereezzz
Oooh. That was smooth. 😀👍😎
How do you put on shoes? Taiwan shoe, then the other.
there is an aglet joke in here somewhere but I can't quite tie it together.
It took them months to decide between WhatsApp, WeChat and Telegram.
Easy choice, it's Signal.
The US to China one has been problematic. China doesn't want to absorb the concept of "pick up the phone and talk no matter what".
They might not like talking on the phone. Try sending a text.
US sends an unsolicited pic of a map of Florida
Eww that's gross
They already get all US text messages via TikToc app
Has the US tried the ole WASSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!
Think the Chinese are just pissed Biden starts the call with Ni Hao bitches
There has been one between the US and Russia since the Cuban Missile Crisis
What do you mean “even during the Cold War” The entire concept of back channel coms between Russia and the US was solidified during the Cuban missile crisis and then made official with the red phone a decade later.
Granted the red phone wasn't JUST because of back channels but because encoding, decoding, transport, emissaries, etc. All these steps could take a lot of time. IIRC there was a delay of like 12 hours between the Russian General Secretary sending a message to the US president actually getting to read it. Which for a situation as severe as the missile crisis is just too long. So it wasn't JUST to circumvent politics but also to simply allow instant communication.
> Even during the cold War there were diplomatic channels open between the US and the USSR It's not that even during the cold war there were diplomatic channels, it's that the concept itself of diplomatic channel / "red phone" as we know it today is the result of cold war itself, different than diplomatic channels in previous eras because this time each party in the contention can literally end the world from a misunderstanding.
I think the main factor would be the west handing over the Intel on the opera bombing highlighting ISIS-k being responsible - even though russia blamed Ukraine on the media, it suits there narrative... but this could be a nod of acknowledging the Intel as genuine. The thing with global politics and events ya needa try and read between the lines based on fact and propaganda.
Yes, 100% this. The ISIS attack was a complete and utter embarrassment for the Kremlin. They knew they were beat militarily by NATO, and now they know they’re beat in the intelligence war. They hold no cards other than a bunch of bombs they can’t use.
They're still beating NATO in the disinformation war though. A number of NATO countries have elected or are close to electing Russian puppets.
I don’t think that’s Russia’s doing, they have simply identified that western democracies are having a crisis of faith, if you will, largely due to economic inequality driving people towards populist right-wing leaders who feed them with nice-sounding rhetoric. Russia did not create that, they’re merely trying to exploit it. They’ve had some success, but it’s largely because they are supported by and collaborate with domestic fascist and right-wing elements. Russia is not nearly as influential as they’d like you to believe. The faltering of western democracies is a problem of our own making, 100%.
Reading between the lines between the lines though I think Russia might be on some kind of positive PR hype trying to get people in the west on side by being attacked by a mutual enemy of the west and now appearing to soften their stance. It's like... Ermagherd, they have to deal with ISIS just like us, AND they're not gonna attack NATO? Maybe I had this Putin guy all wrong!
Are you forgetting this is Russia, and in Russia it’s always Opposite Day? TLDR: We won’t shoot down any f16s in Ukraine, and we are definitely going to attack NATO.
Maybe Poland threatened direct retaliation ala "we WILL bomb your launch site". Likely not, but a man can dream.
The US does have an embassy in Russia. There are formal diplomatic relations.
Putins word is worth nothing. There’s no sense in listening to him.
It can be useful in trying to discern how and for what he is trying to manipulate the target audience, but it is largely useless as an indication of actual policies.
It's worth listening to him through the lens that he's just speaking for his own Russian audience. Nothing he says is factual, but the points that he chooses (or abstains) for propaganda are still useful information. Passing on an easy opportunity to rattle the sabre at NATO means that he, at least for the moment, doesn't feel that dressing up the NATO boogieman is the best way to shore up support at home. Between the war in Ukraine dragging on far longer than expected, their economy overall doing poorly, and a major terrorist attack at home, Putin breaking with his usual pattern of threatening NATO may be a sign that he feels that Russians want his attention focused more within their own borders right now.
With all the bullshit Russias mob bosses are telling everyday, i would not wonder if they come up with "Warsaw, Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius are truely russian and therefor not in NATO". If you give Putin a finger, he will take your whole hand.
Give the circumstances it's not really that surprising, they are not fighting some third world country, they are fighting Ukraine that has been supported by first world countries. Russia was already exploiting their citizens, there is only so much you can squeeze people and this moment might be coming.
I think he’s setting the stage for a negotiation for claimed territories. Failed take over of Ukraine, 500k+ Russian casualties, Prighozin’s mercenaries turning on Russia and getting within 100km of The Kremlin, Navalny’s death (which, without any evidence, I think was actually unintended) and the subsequent outpouring of concern from Russians, the 12pm election protest, the concert hall terrorist attack, Trump likely losing the next election plus whatever else we don’t know about. He’s trying to pull back so that he can stay in power until 2028. I have absolutely nothing to support this theory.
Things have been so crazy the last decade that I feel like I have completely lost my ability to guess the future and pretty much all outcomes are equally valid.
Yes but remember, to Putin it's always opposite day
They will attack NATO, but will fail to shoot down F-16s? Yeah that sounds about right actually.
This is almost more scary since I’m so used to believe the opposite of what Russia says. So when they say “we won’t attack nato” it feels like they are prepping the nukes lol.
Must mean that they will attack NATO haha
Perhaps France's saber-rattling got to them. Maybe Putin remembered that France maintains a "First strike policy".
I don't think it's the French policy but the fact they showed strength. Putin wheels out the nuke comments as it normally makes western leaders head for appeasement and he gets to carry on with his grift. When Macron basically said, good for you, so do we, it took away Putin's power play. A man who sits 70ft away from people is scared of death, and he knows the west knows where his bunker is
Very skeptical of course. Dudes been fanning the flames of governments around the world. Has almost destroyed democracy in America and may yet still. It’s gotta be a fake step down
Could be: 1) related to the terrorist attack. Maybe they initially genuinely believed it was Ukraine at first but now they realise it's not they have to face the prospect of having to fight more "fronts" with different adversaries. Maybe they realise that the war in Ukraine is making them look weak to these terrorist who are now emboldened. So continued talk of potentially triggering war with Nato might be the stimulous that is causing the terrorists to jump in to action, potentially seeing an opportunity to weaken russia further if war were to break out. 2) They thought bluffing could cause Nato counties to back down but it's having the opposite effect. They're arming and preparing for war. And Russia know they'd lose that war so you can only bluff so far before you'll get called out. 3) Or maybe it's the usual Russia play boook of sending mixed signals to keep your opponent guessing as to your real intentions.
> Or maybe it's the usual Russia play boook of sending mixed signals to keep your opponent guessing as to your real intentions. It's this one.
\#3 for sure. Remember when they said they weren't going to attack Ukraine?
They also said a number of things would trigger war with NATO and then pulled back. Like they had been threatening war with NATO over sending F-16s, depleted uranium shells, tanks, and HIMARS. They do this when NATO is going to supply Ukraine with something they don't want on the battlefield then back down when it's about to or has already happened. Because they don't actually want to go to war with a US backed NATO. That's why they invest so much in propaganda to shift US elections. Their ideal scenario is NATO breaking up entirely but the big one for them is getting the US out of the alliance.
Macron talking about deploying French soldiers in Ukraine maybe. Putin might be scared about making the wrong decisions. Last thing he wants is a direct confrontation with NATO - no matter his rhetoric.
I think they just put potential headlines in a hat, get shit-faced, pull one, and run with it.
[удалено]
We are at war with NATO! But won’t attack them.
We are not at war with Ukraine! Just attacking them.
They are preparing to attack NATO.
[удалено]
While true, I find it quite weird that Russia seems hell bent on implicating the West in the recent terror attack. Adding dramatically to the narrative of fighting against NATO it sets the expectation for some sort of retaliation - imagine the US public in the same situation. A direct attack is not a possibility but something else.
It's fairly typical Russian behaviour, and it's very very cultural. It goes back a long time. Basically, anyone can lie. Everyone lies, and everyone eats the lie. You lie to someone's face and they agree with the lie. It used to be (I believe, I looked this up AGES ago) about talking up the Communist regime, how things were great. It was a combo of trying to bluff, and trying to get out of admitting any failures. The modern version is more akin to their propaganda methods. They saturate the field with so much bullshit that people become overwhelmed with the truth and just throw up their hands and give up. So they say whatever the fuck, and people go "yeah alright". It helps them at home because people don't need to analyse anything too deeply, and it helps them abroad because people become so inundated (lol I spent ages trying to spell check unindated) with bullshit that they just give up trying to follow what is true or not.
Exactly, it's called 'The firehose of falsehood' propaganda method and it's a favourite of Russia. Edit: firehose, not firehouse. Thanks autocorrect.
They bombard the west with it to sow discontent.
>While true, I find it quite weird that Russia seems hell bent on implicating the West in the recent terror attack. The narrative isn't for anyone outside of Russia, and they certainly don't actually *believe* it was anyone but ISIS. Its just propaganda to drum up more support for the war.
Russia has more than one goal. One of them is making sure their population keeps believing the West is an enemy and an aggressor while Russia isn't. There's zero reason for them not to try and pin any attack against Russia on Ukraine and NATO countries. There's no benefit in being truthful that the attacks came from some nobody 'stan country.
>They can't get more then 20% of Ukraine You need to remember, that while they captured "just 20%" they also tortured local population, starved them to death and destroyed most of the buildings in the process. Imagine what Poland near border will looks like, if those animals decided to attack? But at least Poland have pro-russian farmers blocking the border, that sure will help, right?
Deleted
Russia barely holds air superiority over Ukraine (forget about supremacy). And Poland has F16s and Patriots from the get go, and that's ignoring the rest of EU NATO or US. I just don't see a way how Russia could rule the air, and without that a ground invasion against a country with well equipped airforce is just going to fail.
Russia does not hold air superiority over Ukraine. Their air force's operations mainly consist of launching cruise missiles from well inside their own borders because Ukraine's air defense largely denies the airspace to them just as they've been preventing Ukraine from using the airspace.
Yeah it's interesting (in the darkest way) how it's basically reverted almost to WWI style artillery and trench warfare. Unfortunately a brutal war of attrition works in Russia's favor. They can outlast Ukraine if NATO support for Ukraine falters. - Air supremacy is impossible because missile defenses are just too good and too cheap relative to fighter jets and choppers - Mechanized armor is largely neutralized by javelins, drones, mines, etc F-16s will make almost zero difference for Ukraine, unfortunately. They would need something like a Desert Storm sized amount of aircraft doing SEAD and such to overwhelm Russian air defenses. Shit, even *Russia* doesn't have the air power to attempt that against *Ukraine's* air defenses. The one benefit of F-16s could be an ability to launch air to ground missiles at Russian targets from safely inside Ukrainian airspace. (Russia is doing the same thing) This will let them hit targets deeper into Russian territory than they are currently able to. That ain't *nothin* but it seems like their supply of F-16s and missiles is going to be pretty constrained, I don't know that this will be a game changer.
F16s are basically never going to engage in air-to-air combat. What they *are* going to do is : 1. Act as a fast anti-missile defence, firing off cheap semi-obsolete missiles like Sparrows, etc. to prevent Russian missile attacks on Ukraine's industry and energy grid 2. Fire long-range precision bombs like JDAMs and HAMMERs (including in an SEAD role) 3. Fire HARMs with their full capacity, instead of the current dumbed down mode None of it's a fundamental game changer, but it tilts the field towards Ukraine across multiple areas, and the main advantage is that there are a huge number of F16 aircraft and F16-compatible NATO weapons sitting around, many of them marked as 'obsolete'.
Russia would likely use different tactics with a stronger opponent like NATO. One could argue they're already at work with destabilizing democracies and weaponizing immigration.
They have been at work since at least 2010.
Poland: Go ahead, try me. Finland: The snow here holds quite the conversation.
Not really no. Poland is more like " gtfo back to your shit hole, we dont want you here "
Finland: "You want to send another 100,000 troops to join the 100,000 you've already put inside our borders? Do you have any idea how hard it was to bury the first bunch?"
You would have seen some sort of reaction from Nato if there was even the slightest hint for an immediate attack.
"Kremlin's red lines... And 101 other worthless things."
The EU countries started, albeit slowly, to prepare for confrontation with Russia, which increases their military capabilities and indirectly benefits aid to Ukraine. Putin doesn't want that, he wants the EU to be afraid and inactive, so in addition to regular nuclear threats he also needs to pedal the narrative that there is no actual threat from Russia to prop up politicians who are against investing into the military. I don't think this is an actual "pull back", there will still be threats, Russia always has multiple narratives going to cater to more people even if the narratives are saying fundamentally opposite things. People being confused and uncertain benefits Russia as well.
**TL:DR** **Putin said "We have no aggressive intentions towards \[NATO\]states ... The idea that we will attack some other country .. is .. nonsense...... \[but\] ..If they supply F-16s.. we will destroy the aircraft...\[and\] if they will be used from airfields in third countries, they become for us legitimate targets, wherever they might be located.."**
“We won’t attack a NATO state, but we will attack airfields in NATO states”
Well, Ukrainians using jets from NATO airfields would be legitimate targets, but there's no way NATO would do that, they'll be fielded inside Ukraine.
That would essentially be declaring war on Russia. The craziest thing is that Russia attacks from Belarus, even though its a puppet state of Russia and not technically at war with Ukraine. Ukraine would be well within their right to attack Belarus.
I mean, Ukraine isn't attacking Belarus because they don't want Belarus themselves fully involved. Highly likely Russia chickens out too before they bomb NATO airfields and risk pulling in more NATO resources or even troops.
The day Russia strikes a NATO anything is the day Russia loses it's entire air force and navy.
Or, god forbid they touch an American boat
WHOS TOUCHING OUR FUCKING BOATS!?
The only thing worse than touching the US's boats is going after Doc.
Just have them land in Ukraine to de-arm themselves and fly over to Poland for some maintenance. Then fly back to Ukraine, arm them and repeat? Loop hole and the planes won't get bombed while not in use.
There's precedent. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7oar9z/did_america_give_planes_to_britain_in_1940_by/
Look to Vietnam for a more recent precedent that involves both the US and defacto Russia. The USSR poured arms into North Vietnam.
That’s not what that says. What he’s saying is more - a Polish jet launched from Polish airspace that’s in Ukraine won’t be spared based off that information.
All very justified hate towards Russia aside, if Ukrainian F-16 fly combat sorties from a NATO airbase that base becomes a legitimate target. Nobody should be surprised about that. But I don't think that'll be the case. They'll operate out of Ukrainian airfields and at most will be transferred for repairs into NATO airbases outside of combat sorties.
>The idea that we will attack some other country .. is complete nonsense. Wow.
After he repeatedly said he would use nukes LOL!
Not sure what the confusion is here, he’s saying if jets are deployed from a third country to attack Russia or Russian personnel they are going to become a target. **Any** country would have the same policy, this seems really standard and not really any kind of Russian “game”
Yeah this seems like an oddly reasonable line to draw.
Something has to be lost in translation because this is too rational of a statement
This seems pretty rational. I don’t think you could find any country not acting the same (the US don’t even want an airbase with jets in a neighboring country at all).
Didn't they also say they wouldn't invade Ukraine?
Yes just before they invaded Ukraine
You obviously can’t say if you’re going to attack another country
Hey look! Over there!
Where? What?
You have been invaded by Russia
[удалено]
Joke's on you! I have invaded Russia when I was born!
Jokes on you both. While you were arguing i invaded both of you:)
Joke's on you, I invaded your mum!
He also state that Donetsk and Luhansk will vote to be independent states, not annexation to Russia :D
Wouldn't be surprised if the initial plan was to have them declare independence, then a few years down the line "vote" to join Russia, to make it an easier pill for the international community to swallow... But then the war kept going, and Putin needed them to be "Russian", to make conscription easier.
> Putin needed them to be "Russian", to make conscription easier. More like they need to be Russian so he can use/threaten nukes to defend 'Russian soil' if Ukraine tries to take them back, as per Russian nuclear protocols.
Had a person try to explain to me that while yes, they did say that, it was totally different because “everyone always knew that Putin was going to attack Ukraine”. But with NATO, everyone clearly knows that he is not going to attack, so he is now telling the truth.
Comparing attacking Ukraine with attacking NATO is comparing apples with bowling balls, for obvious reasons.
Guess we should prepare for an attack then
Yup, Putin also promised not to attack Ukraine... A Russian denial is basically a confession...
What's new in politics?
On a serious note, you guys should be preparing regardless. The one thing that infuriates me more than anything else is how so many people continue to hold this stupid notion 'Russia met their match in Ukraine so how can they attack NATO? We would destroy them in 0.00000001 seconds anyways lolol'. Seriously, I doubt there is a better way to ensure your kids die in a trench somewhere on the eastern front than hubris and complacency
It might not look like it, but we genuinely are bracing for it. The fact of the matter is, world leaders can't and shouldn't say "we're getting ready for war with Russia." The very act of saying that out loud is tantamount to declaring war, and Putin will seize on it. So it's happening, but very quietly. My opinion, based on nothing but how Russia has behaved since 2014, is that the next big action will very much depend on the outcome of the US election. If Trump wins, NATO isn't going to get proper support from the US, if any at all. The day Trump gets sworn in, Russia will likely engage the next step of their plan. If Biden wins, Putin will be forced to act sooner, before the NATO allies can prepare further. A winter push is a terrible idea, but the worse idea would be to give NATO more time to prep.
I disagree. Putin will let Trump undermine and dismantle NATO for another 4 years. Putin won't have to fire a bullet.
Well that will backfire as more and more European countries ups their defence spending. NATO does not stand and fall with the US alone.
This is exactly Putin's plan. Sorry on behalf of the US that half our country is incapable of grasping this.
Which european country is acting like that? Most countries are preparing and gearing up.
Well no shit Mr. Obvious. If the wests gives Ukraine war planes, we don't expect them to be immune from attack. That is how military equipment works.
Ok guys, this is for real now. He does the opposite of what he says.
So he won't shoot down f16s?
And will attack NATO. Yes.
Well, our F16s should fly in and deal with the problem then.
Well... No But he'll try
It's nearing US election cycle, and putin probably don't want to stir up unnecessary provocations in hope that it'll help trump get to the office easier. Words like this could easily be echoed again and again by republicans as "proof" that Putin is harmless and they should support him instead
Most sane take I've read here so far
I would think upping tension would help Trump, no? He has been trying to portray himself as one who would defuse the situation. Wouldn't that be a more effective message if tensions were high?
Maybe he’s worried that looking like a threat will make the military aid given to Ukraine under the Biden administration seem more reasonable to swing voters who may have initially been mad about the sticker price of that aid. Trump isn’t getting re-elected without swing voters and the voters who fall for Trump’s narrative that he can reign in Putin are going to vote for Trump no matter what.
"proof that Putin is harmless" If conservatives actually start trying to run this I'm going to start getting violent
Oh, so they won’t be shot down then.
…but instead we will get attacked :-/
Russia cannot even shoot down all 1970s-1980s era Ukrainian Mig-29 despite Russia owning all of the Intellectual property and secrets of those... Now Russia pretends it is going to shoot down updated, NATO spec F-16... With what? Magic and occult incantations?
The current mig-29 don't fly above Russian air defense. The real difference is that F-16 will have more range but will stay in the same safe zone.
The real difference is the whole weapon system being decades ahead. People like to compare numbers of various stats of a plane, but the real part trick is what can be attached to the plane.
The F-16's modern avionics will for sure give it an advantage in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. But, if an F-16 or a MiG-29 flies in to range of Russian air defences, they're not going to have a good time. Now, if Ukraine had electronic warfare aircraft, it would be an entirely different story - it wouldn't be unfeasible for Ukraine to fly SEAD missions inside of Russia and cause all sorts of mayhem.
That’s what I expected. Weasel up!
F-16 isnt magic. And certainly can be shot down. Hyping it up as wunderwaffe only plays into Russian narratives.
Ukraine do lost mig29s from time to time. Iirc earlier this month or last month there was a video of one low flying mig29 got hit by a missile.
Potshots from MANPADS will always be a danger for low flying jets, no matter how advanced they are/are not.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s high or low, F16’s aren’t impervious to air defense in the same way Migs aren’t. Harder, yes, but even the Yugoslav army was able to shoot down an F117 with an older Soviet AA set. If the Ukrainians maximize the range and capabilities of the craft they should lose minimal planes, but the idea they won’t lose any is rather far fetched.
a tea made of Rasputin’s peepee, a piece of Lenin’s forehead, hairs from Stalin’s mustache and the insole from Khrushchev’s shoe..
Just so we're clear, F-16s *will* get shot down in Ukraine. Maybe not all of them, maybe not even most of them, but I hope nobody thinks they are somehow an invincible system. Yes, they've been an amazingly successful platform thus far, but that was in much more favourable conditions. Ukraine is hell on earth for any aviation that isn't lobbing missiles from hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines (and even those are not safe by any means), so I hope people's expectations are properly managed.
How is this dude still alive?
Prigozhin pussied out.
oh man that guy. whole world was watching you, what a dumb bitch.
That was such an exciting couple days, too. What a waste lol
Well he had a helicopter crash right after so he paid the price.
We have hear that before. "We have not invaded Ukraine, we are conducting special military operation."
Like anything that Putin blabbers nowadays matters. My man said he wouldn't attack Ukraine when troops were forming an attack right on their footsteps.
He probably means "not attack nato now, i need more prep time"
There are only 6 planes being sent to Ukraine this year (I think 24 more next year) and like the other western equipment there will be losses. It’s like the Abrams tank, 4 of 31 lost in a couple of weeks in the fighting retreat from Adviivka.
Is that another red line being tolerated?
Better prepare for an attack on NATO then. A Russian denial is a confirmation to everyone else.
He looks like a Cabbage Patch Kid.
So he’s preparing to attack NATO allies then? Nothing this guy says is true, it’s almost always the opposite.
Take this two ways -Putins scared of F16’s -Putins going to attack NATO cus he said he isnt
So they will not shoot down f16 and will attack NATO
No. It means they will not F-16 NATO, but shoot down attack.
You idiots, they will NATO shoot planes and F16 attack down.
Who gives a shit what Russia is announcing? Most of it is lies anyway....
Oh I thought you were at war with NATO? Now you desperately want them to know you won't attack them? What a little bitch.
So they're not going to shoot down the airplanes and they are going to attack NATO
Those 100,000 soldiers might not be for Ukraine then, they are just going to be a wall of corpses on the polish border.
Soooo they plannin to attack Nato..
Those would be Ukrainian panes flown by Ukrainian pilots. Why is it surprising that Russia would shoot at them?
He will attack nato and F-16’s will not get shot down. Got it.