Russia warns Ukraine’s ATACMS attacks mark ‘new phase’ of war, lowers threshold for using nuclear weapons
freagle @ freagle @lemmygrad.ml Posts 8Comments 1,625Joined 3 yr. ago
freagle @ freagle @lemmygrad.ml
Posts
8
Comments
1,625
Joined
3 yr. ago
Back in 2023, we had a small leak of documentation establishing almost 100 special forces from NATO countries operating in Ukraine, with almost 20% from the USA.
beginning in June 2022, that the CIA had a strong presence in Ukraine, engaging a network of commandos and spies among European partners set up to provide critical weapons and military intelligence to Ukraine
C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the massive amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces.
This according to the NYT.
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/05/russia-ukraine-putin-cia/
There is a much larger presence of both CIA and U.S. special operations personnel and resources in Ukraine than there were at the time of the Russian invasion in February, several current and former intelligence officials told The Intercept.
https://www.intellinews.com/us-says-sending-military-trainers-to-ukraine-is-inevitable-325773/
In another step in the creeping escalation, the US said sending military trainers” to participate in the War in Ukraine is “inevitable,” The New York Times (NYT) reported on May 16.
The US’ highest-ranking officer, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Western armies will provide military trainers to Kyiv “at some point” in a move that would mark a significant departure from Nato’s previous reluctance to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.
“We’ll get there eventually, over time,” Brown told reporters, according to reports. He stressed that doing so now would put “a bunch of Nato trainers at risk” and tie up air defences that would be better used protecting Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield, the NYT reported.
I'm sure you'll be able to find comparable levels of involvement of Iran in the conflict, though. I'll await your sources.
Yeah. You're not paying attention. No one is disputing that Russia invaded Ukraine. Invading Ukraine is not a casus belli for the USA. They don't have any standing to enter the war, but they are salami slicing their way to direct involvement. Again, they have boots on the ground in Ukraine already and they are heavily involved in the conflict. This particular move, to use ATACMS on Russian territory is, in fact, an escalation towards greater risk of US direct involvement.
The only one full of shit is the person who thinks Russia invading Ukraine justifies any and every action the USA chooses to take.
There is no chance of the USA attacking Russian territory? Really? The USA has trainers, weapons, supply chains, recon, targeting intelligence, all confirmed on the ground on the ground in Ukraine and likely multiple unconfirmed capabilities on the ground as well. There is ABSOLUTELY a large chance of the USA attacking Russian territory.
ATACMS are USA weapons, that require USA training and often USA/NATO operators to function, USA personnel for maintenance and repair, etc. Each incremental escalation brings us closer to USA actors pulling a trigger to hit a target in Russian sovereign territory. The USA is salami slicing right now, and Russia is 100% correct to call it out, take preventative action, and prepare for escalation.
The capabilities to generate summaries? Yeah, that's probably true, I knew of AI that could summarize data into narrative years before the current LLM hype. I don't know the underlying tech behind those things I saw though. They could have been early LLMs, they could have been some other neural network. But it was definitely a machine learning solution.
The point that machine learning can reduce the effort to produce dossiers to the point of making millions of dossiers feasible still stands though.
Uhh, that's completely illogical. Yes, Russia broke international law by invading a country. That's true. That does not give the USA the right to attack Russian territory. That's not actually how international law works.
There are lots of reasons Ukraine isn't part of NATO. The first one is that Ukraine made a political commitment with Russia to remain neutral. The second is that Russia made it clear that Ukrainian neutrality was to be respected by NATO allies. The third is that the USA knew how dangerous it would be to bring Ukraine in so they worked on every other former Soviet Republic first. The fourth is that the NATO allies don't all agree on bringing Ukraine in. And the fifth is that NATO policy forbids admitting a country in an active border dispute.
You can say that nukes make it WW3, but that's just vibes. World war is when a war between 2 countries expands to include more countries. Right now, the war is between Russia and Ukraine. If the USA gets involved, then the USA is escalating to world wars. Your vibes are not the standard.
None of these are valid concepts. The reality is that Russia is in a conflict with Ukraine. Activating alliances brings those other countries into the conflict, which is exactly how WW1 became a world war. The USA has nothing to do with this conflict (except the entire casus belli, but let's go with your position). If the US was neutral, Ukraine would lose and Russia and Ukraine would negotiate a security arrangement to prevent further conflict.
But the US has supplied Ukraine with the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget 3 years in a row. Ukraine keeps fighting exclusively because of US support. But, that has been limited to the borders of Ukraine, which creates sufficient ambiguity that only allows Russia to escalate rhetoric. As soon as the US's involvement creates the conditions for strikes on Russian territory, now the USA is a participant in attacks against Russia, making it an escalatory move on the USA's part. The USA could just stay out of it and this whole thing will resolve itself with far fewer deaths and far less destruction.
Do you understand how WWI became a world war? When two countries had a conflict between them, a network of alliances caused others countries to become parties to the conflict. That's exactly what's happening here.
The US, through NATO, was deploying lethal capabilities in Ukraine. Russia determined that this was strategically threatening its security, a position that it has held for 30 years and has been acknowledged by US leaders, diplomats, and generals, as well as world leaders and even the leaders of NATO. Russia launched a conflict with Ukraine, and Ukraine only, in order to address its security concern.
If the USA enters the war, unprovoked by Russia, then it would be the USA starting WW3, just like in WW1 a conflict between two countries expanded to include uninvolved parties when they made themselves involved. The problem with the ATACMS is that it requires US/NATO to operate. Within the borders of Ukraine, that means that US forces are killing Russian soldiers in Ukranian territory. While problematic, Russia has only escalated its rhetoric based on this involvement. However, if US/NATO troops were to use ATACMS to strike Russian targets on Russian territory, that would be an act of war against Russia which would require a response. In this way, the US would expanding the war beyond the conflict of Ukraine and Russia to now be Ukraine, Russia, and the US - an escalation to world war.
The Supreme Court gave the office of the president full immunity for discharging duties of the office.
You're distrust of AI hype is fine, but you're missing the point. OP said AI makes it simple to compile dossiers on everyone, meaning it's now far less labor intensive to take all of the data being gathered by SIGINT and turn it into reports. The amount of labor required to build 10M dossiers on mostly impotent randos makes it completely unfeasible, but with generative AI being able to quickly summarize a dataset, suddenly we can have shitty, somewhat lossy dossiers on every moron shitposter.
What are your thoughts on American and British reporting on China?
Wow. Immediately going to the myth of laziness right from the get go.
You're wrapped in arrogance armor, placed there by propagandists. It makes you feel well intentioned, principled, correct, and most importantly, educated. The problem is that the propagandists ensured you were ignorant and dogmatic. Now you have the terrible curse of being ignorant and dogmatic but believing you're knowledgeable and principled.
Just study more history. Read the people that you're scared of like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Just read more and seek after knowledge that contradicts your upbringing. Most Western communists were raised on the same propaganda you were. We all managed to defeat our training by learning more about what's really been happening for the last 500 years and unlearning the lies we were raised with.
You can do it, too.
Well, at least we know where the Democrats' priorities are.
Foreign policy: Escalation of global war.
Domestic policy: thoughts and prayers
No, that belief is just a coping strategy. You haven't studied history enough. England dominated over 80% of the world's population at it's height. The USA broke from England over economics, primarily the crown's intention to reform or end slavery and the crown's restraining the colonial genocide machine from killing everyone on the continent. For almost 700 years white, European society has been traveling around the world raping, torturing, enslaving, extracting, and exploiting all of the world's people. Every story the white European society tells about some evil doer elsewhere is primarily propaganda (true or not) to justify its continued vile dominance.
There is no future for human society that doesn't involve dismantling everything the Europeans built on the backs of the global majority. Every current and former colony, every economic system, every legal system, every social institution, every religion - it all needs to be dismantled and rebuilt by the world's people in accordance with the needs of those people. There is only one empire and it traces its history all the way back to Rome. It must be ended. Anyone who pretends otherwise is an apologist.
Your own source says Obama rejected sending weapons, but approved other non-weapon aid.
The single comment you sourced says they didn't want Ukraine's conflict with Russia to escalate.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/when-america-toes-moscows-line-214970/
Ukrainian leaders told me that the only action that Secretary of State Kerry and other American interlocutors took was to insist that the government in Kiev should do nothing to provoke Russia, in particular strongly urging Ukrainians not to use force
So your insistence that my word choice is nefarious is only reinforced by your anemic attempt at what you pretend is "research".
You're misleading people, it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.
No. This is not accurate.
Facts First: Trump is being hyperbolic here. While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.
Lethal aid is weapons. Armored humvees are not weapons.
The idea that you think I'm a Trump supporter after reading my comment history is hilarious and says way more about you than it does about me.
LOL. Continuing the time honored tradition of believing that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil nefarious paid actor.
Let's not forget that Trump was the first president in history to send weapons to Ukraine. All prior presidents including Obama said it was far to provocative to do so.
The CIA for the last 4 years has reported that Russia has neither the will nor the capability to capture and hold Ukraine. The only people who are saying it are people like you. Russia will not take all of Ukraine because it does not serve them to do so and it is not militarily feasible for them to do so.
IQ only means something within a small subset of the establishment. It's a made up thing that is highly biased towards white European men. Yes, the system will hold you back if they determine you to have a low IQ, but for thousands of years people of all intelligences successfully lived in societies with others.
You have to give up the belief that the system is the sum total of reality. It's the reason you wonder if your life is over at 23 - because the system is narrow and myopic and only has a little space in it and everyone else is pushed out. But the system isn't even half of real life, and when you find the rest of life by giving up on the system you'll find your life is just beginning.
Carl Jung even said that life doesn't start until 40 - everything before that is just research.
You're right, the transfer of arms between warring and non-warring countries is something of a nuanced problem. On the Iranian side we're talking about cheap drones that Russia could do without, while on the US side the US has sent literally the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget to Ukraine twice. The only reason Ukraine is still standing is because of the USA. This is not true for Russia and Iran. But, there is a case to be made by Ukraine that they might want to launch a war with Iran and DPRK to stop their weapon supplies. When Ukraine decides that, they can prosecute that war.
On the North Korean troops, we still have zero confirmation on them being in Ukraine at all. Only yellow journalism from Ukraine and the West. I will wait till I see proof before I believe it. But again, even if Korea was involved, Ukraine could declare war on DPRK and fight then to stop their support of Russia. Let me know when they decide to do that.
Who is escalating here? The USA. Russia, in 1992, made clear and transparent what they could and could not defend against militarily. They sought a security framework that would mutually maintain the security of Russia, the former Soviet republics, and Western Europe. They even sought to join NATO to achieve this. One of the things Russia stated it could not defend against was a nuclear capability and a ready military presence in Ukraine. To maintain security in the region it was mutually agreed that Ukraine would remain neutral and that NATO would not expand Eastward.
In 1992, after the meeting that established this, Bill Clinton immediately went to his generals and asked for a plan to get Ukraine into NATO. Immediately. Duplicitously. Every expansion of NATO nuclear capabilities and military readiness Eastward was an escalatory step.
Russia, at every turn, warned of the threat but appeased and appeased and appeased because they wanted to be integrated into the world economy and they had established their escalatory red lines. The escalations through the 90s and early oughts were below their red lines.
Then, the escalation got worse. The coup in Ukraine in 2014, where John McCain and Victoria Nuland were on the ground celebrating, was a clear escalation along a security red line and for that Russia responded by annexing Crimea.
The escalation from the West continues as Ukraine began killing ethnic Russians in the Donbass and Ukraine and the political elite of the US got closer. The escalation got to the point where Russia had credible intelligence of military readiness being deployed at the Ukraine border and political discussions of admitting Ukraine into NATO.
Again, Russia chose not to appease this escalation and launched an SMO to create a limited invasion to achieve several goals: 1) protect ethnic Russians in the Donbass, 2) engage Ukraine in a border dispute so it couldn't join NATO, and 3) militarize the border to establish readiness in the face of increasing escalation.
Russia was immediately willing to negotiate with Ukraine but the US and UK made it clear that Ukraine was not allowed to negotiate on its own behalf. Instead they essentially delivered more materiel than Russia's entire military budget for 2 years. Each delivery was an escalation of more and more lethal technologies, but was also coupled with intelligence, special forces, and other actions, each of which were escalations.
Russia has responded to each escalation. But Russia itself has clear goals that it has stated from the outset and has been willing to negotiate on for literal years. And they are the same goals they stated in 1992 while negotiating with the lying duplicitous Americans.
As for whether Russia is the only one threatening nukes, I think you'll find that the USA unilaterally withdrew from multiple nuclear treaties, has openly stated they were building a nuclear kill chain in the Pacific to counter China, openly discussed winning a nuclear exchange, openly discussed developing tactical nuclear weapons, and is the only nuclear power to have ever used nukes against targets. Those targets were primarily civilians, by the way.
So, you can continue to pretend that history started when you want it to, you can pretend that Ukraine and USA are passive victims with no agency who have never done anything that could be considered escalation, and you can pretend that the USA deploying nuclear-armed submarines to Korea and nuclear-armed b52s to West Asia are not threats of nuclear war, but if you do, there's just no reason to engage with you because you're not participating in reality.