Russia Could Invade Ukraine This Weekend

Several likely Russian actions indicate that Russia could invade Ukraine (beyond the Crimea occupation) this weekend.

Ukraine is getting a widescale cyberattack on its government websites. Ukraine says 70 government sites have been hit by cyberattack.

Russia already has 100,000 troops on the border and Russia is moving more military gear now. The image above from the Institute for the Study of War shows Russian deployments at the end of 2021 and now two weeks later move gear and troops are moving to even more aggressive positions.

The Financial Times reports 175000 Russian forces in close deployment to Ukraine.

Ukraine had called up reservists starting in 2021. There are over a hundred reserve units with about 300 in each unit. The units are designed to support the regular armed forces in the event of a Russian attack – by protecting key locations like council buildings and bridges. Many have been training once a week for years.

Ukraine has an army of 145,000, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). There are also an estimated 300,000 veterans of the low-intensity conflict in the Donbas region of the country that started in 2014. Polling says a third of Ukraine’s citizens would be willing to take up “armed resistance”.

A full-scale Russian invasion of unoccupied Ukraine would be by far the largest, boldest, and riskiest military operation Moscow has launched since the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It would be far more complex than the US wars against Iraq in 1991 or 2003. There is a 36 page study from December 2021 of Putin’s military options for an invasion. The analysis estimates that Russia would need 325,000 troops to take and hold Kyiv.

Russian forces based in Crimea and Donbas begin attacks on southern Ukraine, likely with the intention of drawing Ukrainian forces there. Russian mechanized forces then strike toward and encircle key cities such as Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Kyiv. Russians cut off power and other essential services to those surrounded cities to force their capitulation within a few weeks. Most reports of the plan depict Russian forces stopping largely along the line of the Dnepr River, with two notable exceptions—the Russians apparently plan also to seize Odesa and the entire western Ukrainian coastline, and they reportedly aim to encircle Kyiv from the west and seize it as well.

If Putin does not execute the plan this winter but instead repeats this mobilization process in the future, he could seek to achieve the kind of surprise Anwar Sadat secured against Israel in the 1973 war. Repeated Egyptian mobilizations before that war in support of exercises simulating invasion numbed the Israeli Defense Force to those exercises and contributed to their total failure to recognize the moment when Sadat was truly ready to attack.

Russia would not take western Ukraine because of very strong anti-Russia populations that would make it very costly to take and hold.

The US and NATO would have to react in the early days of the attack before major cities fell to prevent the fall of major parts of Ukraine.

Saboteurs have been reportedly sent into Ukraine. This would be to create false flag operations to justify invasion. The US and Ukraine have alleged Russia has already positioned saboteurs in Ukraine to carry out a “false flag” operation to use as a pretext for a Russian attack. A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.

This combined information indicates a likely invasion will start this weekend.

The cyberattacks, creating false flags and moving the particular heavy weapons would be actions taken prior to a major invasion.

If the attack is not this weekend, the probability would still be very high for next week.

SOURCES – Reuters, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Institute for the Study of War
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

93 thoughts on “Russia Could Invade Ukraine This Weekend”

  1. agreed. With Europe's misguided and thoroughly ineffective energy transition program.. Hydrogen??? german solar??? wind farms 100s and 1000s of miles from major water bodies??? EV numbers accelerating. Gas prices skyrocketing. Paris accord policies being shoved down people's throats…
    Russia will be providing (and gouging and threatening) their energy and power for decades past the time that soviet-like puppet governments will have been inserted back into the Black Sea- and Baltic Sea-bordering governments. Its 1980s John le Carre novels all over again..
    Best just to mine the bordering villages and towns, Koreas-syle.

    Reply
  2. Before starting complaining avbout the bad Russians start wondering about NATOs decision to expand in the Baltic states a few yars earlier…….My condolensces …….

    Reply
  3. The US is not falling because of any „progressive agenda“ but because of the deterioration of its democracy into an anocracy without any agenda other than making the rich richer.

    Reply
  4. And what about the right of the Ukraine Right so self- determination ? Russia wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. And the West should NOT negotiate but take a stand here. Otherwise the Baltic countries will be next. And those are NATO countries.

    Reply
  5. I agree with just about everything you said, and getting around may have been easy, but it was not cheap. Supply lines for a time went through Russia and gas cost $400/gallon. So that Humvee ride from a post to a local village cost thousands of dollars. That one helicopter ride? $100,000 dollars or more for one trip on fuel alone, wouldn't include acquisition, labor, maintenance. You are correct, freedom isn't free.

    The more relevant military or political event sloganization would be:

    Remember Napoleon 1812
    Remember NAZI 1941

    Reply
  6. If Putin invades, they will only occupy areas with Russian majorities, or significant minorities. That will lessen any insurgency. They will bomb UKR infrastructure from a distance to degrade any effective responses.

    Reply
  7. I respect your knowledge quite a bit, but regarding Trump finances you might want to look at the blockade of Qatar and then the Qatari sovereign wealth fund investing over a billion in Kirschner real estate.

    I would also look into specifically timed presidential tweets about specific companies and commodities like ZTE, Huawei, Canadian steel, etc. and how they may tank values (short selling) and how seemingly erratic reversal of said policies (buying at the bottom) may be conducive to financial gains.

    For example, a few years ago Musk made one tweet and was investigated and fined by the SEC if I remember correctly.

    Reply
  8. For some items that point in that direction: see his decisions on nuclear power & Gazprom.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der
    For other people it is a bit hard to determine intentions rather than results.
    If someone is enthusiastic about wind & solar, they end up having to favor gas to generate power when the wind is calm & the sun isn't putting out much due to night or clouds.
    OTOH if you like both nuclear & the unreliable sources like wind & solar this looks like a good backup for them
    https://atomicinsights.com/a-path-from-coal-to-nuclear-is-being-blazed-in-wyoming/
    OTGH if you have that why bother putting anything else on your electric grid.

    Reply
  9. Did they actually do that in Soviet Russia [to Europeans]? Not denying, I'd just be curious for sources and that's no doubt what has happened in Europe[esp Germany]

    Reply
  10. what are you talking about? You STILL have to occupy the land. You could literally take your argument with modern airfare supplanting ground combat.
    Why have puts on the ground when you have high altitude jets and bombers that can strike with impunity.
    Nevermind that for every measure, there is a counter measure and a counter measure for that. Like people suddenly become too dumb to think of a counter for drone swarms.

    Reply
  11. WASHINGTON — The White House believes Russia could launch an invasion of Ukraine at any moment, press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday, warning that an “extremely dangerous situation” is building along the Ukrainian border."We believe we're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack on Ukraine. I would say that's more stark than we have been,” Psaki said during her daily press briefing.

    Reply
  12. USSR was quite similar to the USA in this regard.
    Both seeking to impose their ideology on the rest of the world – by any means necessary. Packaged in pretty rhetoric, of course.

    Reply
  13. I suppose Trump could be reelected in 2024, but I just mean "not a Democrat".

    Objectively, Biden has been pretty pro-Putin. Just his decision on Nordstream was hugely important to Putin, and it's only the beginning of the things he's done to improve Russia's position.

    Reply
  14. Exactly, old Soviet tactic: you push and if you meet mush you push some more but if you encounter hard rock, stop pushing and try something else.

    Reply
  15. As the Primal Revolution continues past 50 years, things are getting interesting. Who will win "Icon of Neurosis" prize? "Exemplar of Repression"? "Zenith of Mental Illness" and "Pathetic Power Addict", not to mention "Pitiful Poplitician"?

    Lennon Walls. The Goddess of Liberty. Liberty Enlightening the World. Liberty is a Human value. All Healthy people are libertarian.

    Reply
  16. Seems obvious.
    But little appears to be published on the current 'state of the art', that is, drones in simple 'rolling hills', lightly-populated, 4-season theatre.
    Whether there exists such quantities of drones and the expertise to supply, arm, and coordinate them remains unseen, to me, at least.
    It's one of those pieces of tech that is either a game-changer or so fraught with technical issues – communication, logistical mobilization, weather, wildlife, easy blocking/ disrupting, easy counter-measures, etc… that places entire programs of development in jeopardy.

    Reply
  17. Democrats were silly, claiming that Trump was a Russian asset. He sure didn't act like one.

    And, yeah, he had financial interests. Just running for President demonstrated how little he cared about them, he lost $1-2B in personal wealth during his Presidency thanks to not being able to personally manage his assets.

    Reply
  18. In theory drones could render tanks unusable, because you could deploy a thousand of them for every tank, and still call it cheap, and it would be no fun at all to have a drone fly down your main gun's barrel with even a couple ounces of explosive.

    In practice, this just means you deploy tanks against foes that don't yet have tens of thousands of drones, before they can change that.

    Reply
  19. Is this how Russia sees this, or is it merely how Russian would like the West to view their interests in conquering their neighbors?

    Reply
  20. If European leaders were that sane, Germany wouldn't have shut down those nuclear plants. They didn't shut down perfectly fine, already paid for and running nuclear reactors, just so they could spend more money building speculative ones.

    Reply
  21. They've been getting crazier every year, sure, but Russia needs to worry that they might be hitting levels of craziness that will result in the voters kicking them out of power.

    Right now is a sort of optimal "crazy and still in power" moment, IF Russia means to invade, because they've demonstrably got an American administration that's glad to give them what they want, such as Nordstream approval.

    Reply
  22. No, the topography was not a military obstacle for the Soviets. Having served there for two tours in 2008 and 2011 I can tell you first hand that getting around the country was easy. Especially by helo.

    The main problems the Soviets faced were: the large size of the country, the overwhelming opposition of its people, the dispersed nature of the mujahedeen, the number of troops available to the Soviets, and the billions of dollars the US and Saudi Arabia gave to the the freedom fighters.

    Simply put, the Soviets couldn't afford to put enough troops in the country to control it. They only ever controlled those areas they had troops in. That was a miniscule part of the whole.

    The Russians will face the same problems in Ukraine. And we will arm the Ukrainians. And if that means war between Russia and the US, then so be it. Freedom isn't free, it has to be fought for and sometimes it has to be died for. Remember Munich 1938.

    Reply
  23. what are you dreaming about, RU has no money and no people to enter convential conflict of such scale … just making noise. the only problem is that they have nukes, otherwise noone would care

    Reply
  24. russia's demographic collapse has a tiny window to do what it can to secure its border. it will never have enough in a few years to do so its no surprise this is its Hail Mary to relive the soviet days which Putin and co. is still stuck in.

    Reply
  25. Unclear. The main difficulty with taking over Afghanistan is the topography. There are just so many places to hide. The Ukraine is mostly farms. So, unless they build a lot of tunnels, they can't hold out as well.
    Just defending cities doesn't work, because outside forces can cut off the water and the food.
    There were also less issues with the US giving weapons to Afghanistan. If we give them to The Ukraine, we stand the very real risk of getting pulled in to a more direct conflict with Russia.

    Reply
  26. It becomes harder for individuals and families to move away from the less pleasant places like Siberia. Also, some of these places are only linked by rail. There is no road. That means whoever controls the rail, controls trade and extorts tolls.
    The attraction to strong men is part of the culture. A bunch of strong men just invites a lot of conflict.
    On top of that, it is just a matter of time before the next egomaniac tries to put it back together with a lot more bloodshed.
    It simply does not benefit them individually or collectively to break up further.
    There might be places where these are smaller issues, where there are good ports, and defensible boarders. Perhaps Kamchatka. But too few people live there, for that to work either.

    Reply
  27. War is stupid. Stop pointing missiles at people and instigating trouble. If I were to advise Ukraine it would be SURRENDER and negociate a peaceful partnership with mutual benefits. Pawns always die.

    Reply
  28. not sure what kind of public display or civil disobedience would make a difference… terrorism is met with secret police. Anti-Putin propoganda/ reporting is met with secret police. Low-productivity and work-to-rule hasn't changed in decades, likely not even noticed. Elections do not appear to matter and don't foster either low attendance or resulting outcry, which doesn't matter. Gulags and work camps? Bribe the local authority? Hide in the tundra?

    Reply
  29. Yes, he will. Look at the 2019 and 2020 Ukrainian election results. Pro Russian political parties have very little support, even in the far eastern parts of the country. I'm thinking even Ukraine's russian speaking population is not eager to see Putin attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union. No one wants to be sent to a gulag.

    Moreover, if Putin limits his advance to the Dneiper, he'll be in an even worse situation. He'll face an insurgency in the east, and a NATO armed Ukrainian Army advancing from the west.

    Reply
  30. which begs the question of how war-changing it would be to have drone-sensing snipers, both infantry and light-armor mounted…
    i'm not convinced that those little 4-8 'peller, militarized pests are as valuable, controllable, and flight-nimble as suggested against infantry platoons…

    Reply
  31. so…
    Chinese, then, like to publicly cheer their solidarity/ history but privately like to show off their position in society and would leave their country for an opportunity to show off an even greater position???

    Reply
  32. Also ha!
    Americans like to publicly renounce their living circumstances/ history but privately like to savor their perceived position/ attitude in the world and wouldn't leave their country for anything…
    …whereas…
    Russians like to publicly cheer their cultural circumstances/ history but privately like to hide their perceived role/ attitude in the world and would certainly leave their country for anything…

    Reply
  33. If it's gonna happen it will probertly happen syncronic with the event of the Olympic games. On the other side – Putin certainly got a good understanding of consequence with such actions – even if the Olympics will dull it a bit.

    Reply
  34. Ha! Can't easily argue with that. But there is a key difference. The quality of the most productive parts of the population and their personalities. The US population (and Canada and UK, and somewhat northern Europe and Australia) has such a culture of individual selfishness, ruthless wealth and stuff acquisition, and blatant class signalling behaviour (house size, car type, etc), but not a huge interest in lording over their fellow citizens (mostly) and overthrowing the current system (irrespective of party in power). They grudgingly accept that the amount of freedom (and space and infrastructure) they have as unlikely to be better anywhere else for following their sordid individual objectives and bizarre religious/ political/ social beliefs. Further, personal and work competition is brutal but not usually violent or spiteful; and often collusional in nature to the detriment of the 'free' market. It is this 'herding of predatory cats', when taken in aggregate, and strangely achieving an unlikely equilibrium, that has created an unprecedented productivity and creative output — which implausibly, continues to recycle and promote itself. Others are resentful. And the entertainment, culture, language thus spreads and infects all…

    Reply
  35. They might need to wait for quite a while though. “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.”

    Meanwhile, the Russian and the Chinese populations — the urban segments — have *willingly* absorbed a lot of the American values via Instagram etc and being exposed via foreign students bringing back assimilated thinking. This exposure and assimilation is reflected in low TFR numbers.

    That being said, it is true, however , that the American elite is getting crazier every year and this affects foreign policy decisions of the State Dept as well as other bureaucratic bodies.

    Reply
  36. The americans knew quite well that the nuclear missiles installed in Cuba in the '60 were for deterrence, as well. For defensive purposes.

    Reply
  37. I disagree.
    The USA is falling like a rock, geopolitically. The fundamental cause is the ruling class imposing their progressive ideology on the empire on all areas, from demography to school curricula, with far reaching consequences as to the viability of the USA.
    The russians, much like the chinese, know this. Their default strategy is to wait until the USA disintegrates or simply becomes impotent beyond its borders.

    Reply
  38. This is the way the West sees this. Russia sees it differently. The former Soviet republics are considered buffer states. And this especially pertains to Belarus and *the* Ukraine (even its name means “periphery” in Slavic), which have very large Russian population and cultural ties (to the point that the locals, even young ones, speak Russian day to day). The Russians consider NATO expansion into Ukraine as a threat and compare their own reaction to Kennedy’s during the Cuban missile crisis. They have a valid point. I see a good negotiation opportunity, if Biden plays this right. But I’m not sure it’ll happen.

    Reply
  39. Putin is in a tough spot. If he invades Ukraine, he may at first be successful. Over the long term though he'll face an insurgency that will cost him billions of dollars to fight and thousands of casualties. Eventually, just like Afghanistan in the 80s, he'll have to withdraw his forces.

    If he doesn't invade, he basically looks like a blow hard. He'll lose face with the Russian people.

    Reply
  40. The cyber attack agaonst Ukraine that's been in the news today is now being flagged as being carried out by Belarus intelligence (or so I last saw). But, isn't the government (or some part) still a Russian puppet? I don't mean offense to anyone from there, honestly. I just have no way of knowing. I thought Russia has still considered it to be their territory. If they wanted to take out Ukraine cyber assets or cause a blackout of government sites like what's happened, Russia could perhaps use Belarus and blame them.

    "Dude, check out that loris!"
    "Yeah, it's so slow!"
    "Oh, okay, very funny, yeah, zing!"

    Reply
  41. Russia will invade Ukraine under Biden, just like the invaded Crimea under Obama. He wasn't foolish enough to do it under Trump, but whenever we have a weak Commander in Chief, Putin pushes outwards.

    Reply
  42. Putin and Russia have been saying the same thing for over a decade now. They don't want Ukraine in NATO. The U.S. and NATO countries continue to ignore him. This isn't a bluff, and there may be severe consequences if we're not willing to negotiate.

    Reply
  43. They've seen to it that they can't act, by rendering themselves dependent on Russian natural gas, and the current US administration encouraged them to.

    So, no, I don't expect that NATO will lift a finger if Russia invades Ukraine.

    Reply
  44. The Russians don't "need" Eastern Ukraine, either; Nobody is going to invade them from the West, and they know that quite well. NATO is a defensive alliance, nothing more.

    They wouldn't be invading Ukraine for defensive reasons, but only as part of Putin's program of attempting to put the USSR back together.

    Reply
  45. "The US and NATO would have to react in the early days of the attack before major cities fell to prevent the fall of major parts of Ukraine."

    In that case, if he's going to do it, he'll certainly not wait until 2025. Right now he's got a highly cooperative President giving him basically everything he wants, and who is extremely unlikely to act decisively in the event of an invasion. That could change abruptly in 2025.

    Reply
  46. Hoping that smaller pebble bed nuclear reactors get a serious look in Europe. They are being looked at in China and the U.S. They are a game changer.

    Reply
  47. Note that Putin & before that the Soviet Union has used the anti-nuclear crowd, especially in Germany, to make Europe dependent on Russian gas. Shut down the nuke plants so people freeze in the dark if their government opposes Putin's actions.

    Reply
  48. Gee, I wonder if the citizens of Crimea are unhappy they voted over-whelmingly to rejoin Russia after the Ukrainian rebels overthrew the elected president in 2014?

    Reply
  49. "delusionary empire," "deserves to be an international superpower ad-infinitum with
    significant financial, economic, cultural/ language, and military influence over all aspects of world affairs in an age when techno-individualism and capitalo-self-interestedness will continue to
    be more important than mere country borders then you are in an 'identity-shame loop' – an endless angry, aggressive, and self-loathing
    pattern. " Sounds pretty much like America too.

    Reply
  50. End of Saturday and no invasion , seems that will not happens , honestly, who want to die for such useless war? Just a bluff of Putin

    Reply
  51. Yep. Yep.
    And the whole difference, after just a few centuries…
    The difference between us and Them#1, Them #2, Them #3, etc., etc….? A true belief and daily adherence to the most unlikely of all phrases…
    "… certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…"
    makes all the difference – at least, when you get your work done…

    Reply
  52. Because Russia, in general, and Putin, in particular, cannot be trusted to 'ever be satisfied'. When you have a culture based on a delusionary mindset that the Russian empire, as it included Tsarist Russia, The Revolution, Soviet time, and now modern-ish Russia… deserves to be an international superpower ad-infinitum with significant financial, economic, cultural/ language, and military influence over all aspects of world affairs in an age when techno-individualism and capitalo-self-interestedness will continue to be more important than mere country borders then you are in an 'identity-shame loop' – an endless angry, aggressive, and self-loathing pattern. Combine this with a population that have always been either predators, parasites, or survivors; you have the forever rebel. Insatiable. Undefined. Glory-seeking. China is the same, but the people are different; more pro-system, internally collaborative. A post fossil-fuel, post-globalization supply-chain, post-hacker world will reset all this and such old national systems will fade – maybe 2040s or so.

    Reply
  53. Lol Brain, not a chance. Maybe some severe cyber attack against Western Europe in q2. Putin doesn't even have enough forces to occupy Ukraine. And your simplistic understanding of Ukraine (western – hates, eastern – loves russia) is just laughable.

    Ant FFS fix the password recovery – I get the reset link, but it doesn't do anything.

    Reply
  54. Putin aims to make Russia safer from invasion by acquiring a buffer zone. The invasion of Ukraine will almost certainly succeed. The only question for Ukraine is whether they want their country pointlessly destroyed and many lives lost in the process. If not, they've got two choices:

    • Surrender immediately and outright.
    • Or make Putin pay a stiff cost where he doesn't want to pay it, then surrender. I.e:

    Counter-invade Russia, not to take and hold territory, but to move quickly and widely and cause as much economic and infrastructure damage as possible inside Russia in a short period. Decline to face and engage Russian forces as long as possible. Then surrender.

    Maybe Russians will blame Putin for getting the Motherland invaded and damaged. And maybe Putin (or his successor) will realize that grabbing territory for a buffer against hypothetical and frankly unlikely invasion by NATO may not be worth the real and immediate costs.

    Reply
  55. Why not take Russia at its word: they don't want NATO/US on its border, with missiles aimed at/near Moscow. Anyone who doesn't understand the value of a land buffer to Russia, doesn't understand Russia and its history of using land to defeat its enemies (especially in winter). Instead of negotiating with Russia to find a peace that all 3 parties can live with – with Ukraine maybe a neutral country like Switzerland and open to relations with all in exchange for strong agreements over map lines not to be crossed & support from U.N. etc. – Biden has chosen a new cold war that could become a hot one & maybe end civilization. Maybe he thinks having a war will boost his plunging ratings like 9/11 did for failing Bush II but it won't with the realistic choices he has against a much more powerful enemy than Iraq. War is obsolete & extremely dangerous in a tripolar world.

    Reply
  56. I’d be rather careful and not provoke Russia/Putin. Ukraine is a red line, and pointless expansion of NATO is not in anyone’s interest. Other than in Western Ukraine’s. I do believe that Brian Wang is right and that Russia is likely to attack Ukraine. The Russians do not need the whole of Ukraine. Mostly, they need to consolidate and expand their gains in the East of Ukraine and link up with Crimea. This way, should Western Ukraine join NATO, Russia’s access to the Black Sea is secure.

    Reply
  57. They're very good at sending messages, perhaps they can find a way to hurt Putin's feelings.
    The trillion dollar war machine will remain completely impotent as Russia does as it pleases.

    Reply
  58. not convinced.
    East european, central asian, and russian CIS-type states are very political, very polarized, and much militant. Also, that new russian-type military cooperative association… the 'eastern' NATO.. terrorists and aggresive factions can do much that military units cannot..

    Reply
  59. Russia will prepare….and wait. Donbass will eventually come to them, and they concentrate on controlling the cost. No invasion of Ukr, and decapitation strikes if Ukr gets aggressive. Likely Ukies will increase shelling, perhaps with US cannon, etc., which will be wrecked by counterbattery. Keyword is patience.

    Reply
  60. Word.
    EMP-shielded hobby drones with a few magazines of armor-piercing and/or plastique, well coordinated in flocks low and high will cut infantry and light armor to shreds — operators laughing 5+ miles away…
    like a cloud of midges — 1000s per swarm all the way along that frontier…

    Reply
  61. No need to fall prey to Russia tactics and spread panic. Russia is not going to attack the Ukraine. The Russians standards of living have been falling since the Crimea take over. Russia doesn't have the stomach to take the level of sanctions it is going to get in a case of an invasion. The Russian army morale is low and is not ready for such a war.

    NATO can show more muscle. Moving fighter jets to Poland and threating that an attack force will be bombed from the air.

    Reply
  62. All about Russki front line experience and tech…
    the best and brightest top 5% with the Kremlins lion-share miltary investment put to the test??? Well if they start breaking 1M daily covid counts consistently there with hospitilizations and ICU percentages as high as they are in the big cities… distraction and costs will make it a 'do it in a few weeks or don't bother' scenarios.

    Reply
  63. Agreed. Leaky and unsupportive cultural values will continue to undermine these cage-rattling activities. Who wants to support some old style soviet empire building when there is Netflix and Roblox and the 'Tube? Old-style rivalries and national gestures of military/ economic superiority are so much granny's Borscht. Even Putin will tire of trying to motivate a generation of slav-millenial/Z slackers — even if they can hack 1st world factories and offices…

    Reply
  64. We should definitely invade, just push in about 200 miles from Urkraine ,and then stop and negotiate from there.If this starts a nuclear armegeddon,then we solve so much of global warming and over population,I don't see the downside, besides I don't think it would come to that,But danger of not invading Russia is greater than doing nothing,I guess we should have kept Donald ,with all his faults.

    Reply
  65. Nato should attack, but I wasn't aware that Germany and France are so pro Russia anti West that they blocked the NATO supply of sniper rifles to Urkraine. EU will not lift a finger against Russian aggression even if they were rolling into Paris,this makes things difficult for Biden as what your allies do is important in any operation.
    I suspect Biden has been very meek and accepting of any moves Russia makes, he'd have to be as his Air Force alone could allow Ukrainian advances.
    There is another strategy,if EU were strong and united they could take other Russian territories like the enclave on the North Sea.
    If Russia does invade I'd support impeachments immediately of Biden and Harris.

    Reply
  66. Desperation nonsense.
    Of all the poor timing to finance a borderline skirmish and publicly antagonize a neighboring country. I get that most populations get the government they deserve, but how could Putin feel that this stimulates any kind of patriotism, economic boost, or international standing? So, your covid stats are off the charts, your people are unproductive and disagreeable, its winter, you have no sports – tech – cultural showcases to show off to the world — so hey, let's have an Afghanistan-type multi-decade comedy-drama that they will have to withdraw from anyway…
    A few Ukranian molotovs into the onion-top-towers, moscow subways, and army barracks, daily will start to make the population sulky and disruptive…

    Reply
  67. What is there even to be gained? land, resources, sympathetic populations, breeding stock, international standing? nyet. nyet. nyet.
    Pointless adventurism.
    It's a shame that Europe depends on Russian fuel so much, otherwise that big old bear should have dried up and blown away years ago…

    Reply
  68. Why is land-based warfare still a thing between 1st- and 2nd-world countries in the the 21st century? With satellite monitoring to a couple dozen inches, guided-munition/ demo-drone multi-score swarms of barely more than a pound each with 50-mile ranges, anywhere/ anyhow cel/data communications by the locals, 3d-printable field weaponry, etc… how could any force hope to reasonably occupy and enforce compliance with such a readily defensible population? NATO need not even budge nor acknowledge.

    Reply
  69. No 3rd chance for Russia!

    1st republic went down 1917
    2nd republic failed 2000

    When it's finished just dissolve it. Multinational states are permanently unstable crisis hubs, see Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia.

    Reply
  70. Just tell Biden that Putin is going to steal his Ice Cream and he'll be all over this.

    But I'm so confused. How come Putin didn't invade when his puppet Trump was running things?

    Reply

Leave a Comment