"The 1980's are calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

If this was a Tom Clancy book, we'd send F22s to clear out any air cover, and then f35s to take out air defenses and convoys, then blame it on the Ghost of Kiev.

Unfortunately in real life, a no fly zone can’t be enforced without either constant loss of planes or taking out SAM sites inside Russia. The missile ranges are just too long. The F22 might be able to get away with it, but if not there’d be hell to pay.

So I wasn't paying attention. Why did so many people in Ukraine hate Zelensky so bad before this all started?

Damn. I had to look that percentage up because I didn't believe it, but according to Wikipedia, their active duty ground forces are only 280,000?!? The U.S. Army alone has almost half a million.

Fuck! I mean I KNOW it is, but I am still amazed at how fucking big Russia is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transsib_international.svg

The Trans Siberian Railway is TWICE as long as the longest US train (Empire Builder; Chicago to Seattle).

Russia really is a Gas Station with Nukes.

At this rate, all Russia is doing is exporting more scrap metal to Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-planning-to-institute-martial-law-in-russia

We know what denial from the Kremlin means nowadays. If you know anyone in Russia, tell them to get out while they can.

"Extraordinary" NATO meeting tomorrow. Why can I almost feel the doomsday clock ticking down?

Some of the videos in that thread show snow coming down. That's not good for Ukraine. Means the ground could solidify enough to let the Russian vehicles leave the road.

On a lighter note, as a reply to that thread said, it's awful nice of Putin to be sending so much military aid to Ukraine.

Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning....

You literally just compared active espionage to a law that makes it a crime to talk bad about the Russian military.

This law doesn't stop Snowden, those laws are already on the books in Russia, just like every other nation on Earth.

The equivalent in the west would be a law that people who talk about what Snowden said face real jail time.

You are just as captured by your sides propaganda as anyone else.

This is about the Russian shelling of the largest nuclear plant in Europe. It appears they have stopped, no radiation has been released. This is about the only way I can see NATO actually getting directly involved. I don't think even the Russians are stupid enough to do this on purpose - their army is only good for large scale structural damage. I tend to think this is going to cool down.

Lindsey Graham doesn't understand what it's like to be a toady to a would be strong-man? OK, Blanche.

Given that the Russian army seems to not know what they’re doing or where they’re supposed to be, I wouldn’t be surprised if they hit something dangerous by accident.

Pretty much my take as well, yeah.

That looks like a slingshot, not a trebuchet?

I know, I'm not making any hyperbolic claims here except to draw attention to the parallels.

The US is nowhere near as far down the line as Russia but the warning signs should be heeded to prevent the gap closing.

What Snowden et al did is espionage in the most technical sense. In truth they were whistle blowers about uncomfortable truths. The difference lies in degree, not type.

I think that's a bit too broad. Everyone of course has reasons for what they do. But in this case, his 'I want to win an election' led to 'I'm going to have my men blow up a building to start a war.' That's not reaction. That's a proactive measure.

NATO had declined to offer them membership at that time. And Georgia was responding to Russia's tacit support of the breakaway areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Again, I don't think you can call it reactive to say 'We are going to invade you because you might take steps to make it hard for us to invade you later.' That's the antithesis of reactive.

It is however Russia's preferred narrative.

He's old, he thought he could do it without consequences, he wants to do it.

It's possible there is some other motivation at work, but the conceit that there must be because he'd never do such a thing otherwise is flawed. He's stated openly this is his intent.

Geopolitics. Ukraine is far more resource rich, is the breadbasket of the former Soviet Union, is the key territory for the pipeline to sell Russian's greatest asset, its LNG. It also contains Crimea, and those ports are absolutely essential to Russian commerce.

Ukraine has the 2nd largest natural gas fields in Europe, behind only Russia itself. It could come to rival Russia as an energy exporter, and is closer to the markets of Europe. It also has large deposits of oil, coal, titanium, and lithium. And a Western facing government can make use of Western technologies to tap them.

Plus he expected a more receptive audience. There are 17 million ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Clearly he expect there to be little opposition, in the same manner as Crimea.

There are only 70 thousand ethnic Russians in Georgia.

Georgia would be useful to have. Ukraine is the gem that solves many of Russia's longstanding problems while taking away several possible negative impacts of competition.

I think that answers the other questions you posited.

He expected this to be a fait accompli, with a positive reception by Ukrainians, a comedian for a President, and weak, inefectual response from the West.

This time he was wrong. So now there is going to be a lot of death, and if saner heads don't prevail could expand the conflict.

This, for me, hits a lot of nails in one go.

It feels very much as though the actual logistics in play are ad hoc, which would make sense if the troops expected (and, more importantly were expected) to merely stroll in, pitch camp and provide a symbolic presence to a quiescent population.

That the Russian military is seeming to be such a paper tiger would make a great deal more sense in that light if opposition was essentially expected to be a token effort from a Ukranian military disillusioned with it's leadership.