> sanctions implemented by the EU and the US, and they are a joke, since EU continues to import gas from Russia

Arguably, gas is of military value, so maybe it's more advantageous to allow Russia to have the money and have the gas than the other way around. Depends on if the money goes towards other armaments - but I'm sure Russia has plenty of those in any case.

That said, why wouldn't Russia stop selling? Hmmm.

> ex-president of the United States openly praising the Russian president on the media

> US TV networks openly doing the treasonous job of promoting Russian views in the US

Can you clarify, I feel there might be a dubious definition of 'praising' and 'promoting' at play here.

I mean the Russian agents of disinformation and Russian money, as always, is at work behind enemy lines, in this case in the US.

You had US military and ex-military, doing work for Russian's since the 2014 Obama administration. That explains a lot of what has emboldened Russia.

"Trump being advised by ex-U.S. Lieutenant General who favors closer Russia ties" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-adviso...

"Michael Flynn—Once Indicted Over Russia Communication—Voices Support For Russia Ahead Of Potential Ukraine Invasion" https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/01/24/michael-fl...

That Op-ed is shocking TBH, is discredits Flynn as an advisor. However I think you still need more to back up the accusation of Flynn, let alone Trump, being a (compromised) Russian asset. There seemed to be a lot of politicking around his prosecution, for example (complicated by the fact that these kind of coercive plea-deal threats are actually common in the US). Also, The headline is partially (but not entirely) manipulative in describing the op-ed as "Support For Russia" - it sound like a whole lot of shilling, esp the stuff justifying Russian opposition to NATO and border fortification, but it's not wholly supporting it either; the fact they cram the incitement into the headline shows what message they are trying to convey.

But I think the other stuff (Flynn in Trump admin) is old-news; Biden administration had also talked of better diplomatic ties with Russia recently, before the invasion started. Dems have been somewhat more pro-China than Trump also, and I'm somewhat hesitant to distinguish being "pro-China" vs "pro-Russia"; both are strong mutual allies, at least in backing each other up both in terms of resources and PR.

You missed the detail that Flynn was pardoned....of talking to the Russian ambassador and lying about it, to US law enforcement.

I didn't.

Also, could you respond in full e.g. "Flynn was pardoned by Trump, meaning that..." so I don't have to guess what you mean.

EDIT: ok it was done, thanks. Although I'd add he was caught not disclosing talking to an ambassador (he is afaik allowed to do so), and then accused of lying about it to the FBI.

Per my post, there was a lot of politicking in that incitement that by itself would have justified the pardon.

TBH, I just don't know - which is what I mean by "politicking"; The more I read the more I feel I'm either missing something, or fed mis-information or a skewed perspective.

There was a whole thing about altered or manipulated notes during the Flynn incitement - yet Wikipedia page for Flynn barely mentions it, or McCabe, and McCabe's page mention his firing (which he says was based on an attempt to discredit him) but barely mentions Flynn..

Was that important? Was the DOJ justified in dropping charges, or was Barr corrupt? Was the Pardon justified given the FBIs shady tactics (although shady tactics might be their modus-operandi..), or not? Or maybe the pardon was more motivated by Flynn being "inner-circle" than anything FBI or Russia based. I just don't know.

What politicking there is, on a active and retired US military travelling to Russian since 2013, having high level contacts with the Russian government, and then lying about it, to its own country Law enforcement?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1015126/download

Again, these characterisations are easy. They are made on both sides. I can construct a similar line about the FBI incitement, casually throwing in disputed or hard-to-verify facts.

I'd pick you up on "lying about it" - I consider the FBI to be heavily politically active, esp in the Trump/Comey times, so describing them as "law enforcement" in these situations is misleading.

I added detail to my previous comment, but I don't really trust the outcome of an incitement where the FBI held all the cards - you get the same thing when people accept one-sided plea deals from the police - "they even admitted they did it".

There's a whole lot of context around this. For example, you can characterise the FBI as simply "Law enforcement", but you could characterise the DOJ-under-Barr the same. If you have reason to doubt/discredit the DOJ, them you should equally allow for the same wrt the FBI-under-Comey.

In 2015 Flynn was on RT, a Russian state-controlled international television network, funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government. He advocated for the US foreign policy actions across the world to work closely with Russia.

He was paid $45,000 for his appearance, but again "forgot" to report that income. What is the US bar for the word "treasonous"?

Apparently Flynn earns millions as a paid speaker - how much of that income was reported? Poor tax reporting/fraud isn't treason.

You are cherry picking facts without context, and just repeating tabloid headlines.

That’s a good point. I visited Latvia a few years ago and was struck by how large a section of society there identifies as Russian, to the extent that in some places you were more likely to hear people speaking Russian than Latvian.

Poland would be a more difficult target to justify than the Baltics; only 0.1% of Poles speak Russian; 30% of Latvians are native Russian speakers. I could see Putin going there next.

All three Baltic nations are NATO members. An attack on any NATO member requires a response by NATO.

So, not likely that Latvia is next.

For the sake of all of us let's hope you are right:

"‘If a war starts, they will come here first’: Latvia mounts a wary border watch"

https://www.politico.eu/article/war-russia-ukraine-latvia-mo...

>An attack on any NATO member requires a response by NATO.

I am not, even slightly, sure that this is the case anymore. Economic sanctions is as far as anyone is willing to go anymore it seems - and half-assed ones at that.

I absolutely cannot see the US, England, or any other NATO countries sending people to die in Latvia. There just is zero stomach for that in most of the world.

And people like Putin know that, is the problem, I think.

That is exactly why the situation is so dangerous. If there is even a hint that the US and the whole of NATO will not come in strong, then yes there is the possibility that he could go further.

There is another very dangerous scenario that has not been considered. A Russian inspired coup in one of the existing NATO countries with a not so small large Russian speaking population. That government then saying they want to leave NATO.

On another side, it's not even mentioned that in the middle of the war action in Ukraine, nobody seems to have noticed Putin just annexed another country, Byelorussia. The Russian troops were supposed to leave at the end of their 3 week long exercises, but they are now leaving...never.

> On another side, it's not even mentioned that in the middle of the war action in Ukraine, nobody seems to have noticed Putin just annexed another country, Byelorussia. The Russian troops were supposed to leave at the end of their 3 week long exercises, but they are now leaving...never.

Belorussia has been a Russian puppet since the collapse of the USSR, nobody's noticed it because nothing has changed.

True, but weeks ago their dictator was still trying to maintain the farse that the Russian troops were only present for exercises and would leave then. And its rumored the "referendum" planned for 3 days from now will settle it.

"Referendum on Belarus’ constitutional amendments set for 27 February" https://president.gov.by/en/events/referendum-po-vneseniyu-i...

I'm not an expert, but sounds to me that Germany halting the nord stream pipeline, influenced Putin to go over the already under russian controlled area. I ask myself if removing Russia from SWIFT wouldn't make Putin just keep rolling over until the German border. In another hand, from the strategic point of view, Europe should have one more economical pressure option in case Russia doesn't stop in Kiew, and the SWIFT is this last option before War.

Putin's speech about a military operation in Ukraine was recorded before Germany halted Nord Stream 2. What happens now has been planned for months.

Not sure what you mean by SWIFT being the last option before war, war is happening right now.

Yes and No. For Putin, the control and Donetsk and Luhansk was already planned. Everyone in the intelligence scene could note some details like: The Russian Tanks with extra fuel tank and the national guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_Russia presence in the region. What came next, IMO, was decided after the Nord Stream 2 halting. Russia will be now in the Polish border and therefore it gets more power in the negotiation table.

> Not sure what you mean by SWIFT being the last option before war, war is happening right now.

The War isn't happening for NATO. NATO as we all know won't do anything regarding the Ukraine invasion. If Russia starts to bulk troops on the Polish border - or any other NATO member, EU will try to solve it diplomatically using the SWIFT option before really going to War.

He means its the last card the west can play short of war. If they unleash all of their cards now they have no chance at dealing with Putin in the next few days. As small as the hope sounds, its possible Ukraine could resist enough and possibly hold some ground, and Putin could be convinced to stop his advance at some point with the threat of swift being revoked.

Our cards won't change in the next few days. If playing them now or a few days ago wouldn't have stopped Putin, why do you think those same cards would work better once Putin has gone even further and owns Kyiv?

I don't. I was just clarifying what the GP meant.