Vladimir Putin knows something that Joe Biden doesn’t appear to recognize about a major Russian invasion of Ukraine. As the U.S. president sends our troops to Eastern Europe, how will they deal with this crucial fact?
Video above hosted at Rumble.
Are you tired of the incessant Leftist narrative in the mainstream media? Would you like to find a place where sensible people deploy conservative values to debunk the news narrative of the day? We invite you to meet our Members, who run their own exclusive blog and forums, away from the toxic sewer of social media. Membership brings you exclusive access to them, as well as to Backstage content. Join us now when you click the big green button above.
If you want to contribute without becoming a Member, just click the big blue button above to make a one-time or recurring contribution with PayPal or credit card. Either way, we appreciate you, and could not provide free conservative content to many thousands of people without your support. Thank you.
25 replies on “Poised for War? Does Biden Know this Crucial Fact about a Major Russian Invasion of Ukraine?”
I may well be asking the dumbest question ever asked on this show, but just where is the “like button” on the Rumble episodes?
People Forget, or never knew, why Crimea was significant. Its the Florida of the soviet union. Yes the Soviets spent money on it and the Donets basin but the land owners there are not Ukrainian. The Ukraine’s in those regions were starved out in the famines. Their descendants live in the USA and Australia. Russia, both the Tsars and Lenin/ Stalin, kept the roads of western Ukraine dirt. It spent money in the east and at the southern ice free ports and resorts. Land and recreation for the party faithful and its descendants. The empty west and some parts of the southern caucuses were kept impassible to big armies intentionally. In WW1 and WW2 it worked. When Kyev diverted money to pay for good roads in the west, north of Odessa, that money came from Crimea and the east which promptly use it as an excuse to rebel. The east and Crimea are poorer now than when the first rebelled.
One reason why Putin may not invade is the political demographics of Ukraine. The west of Ukraine is sparsely populated with slowly growing urban centers: Kiev and Odessa. The east Donetsk and Luhansk reverted to being communist dictatorships and hemorrhaged people. The leaders of these republics have challenged Putin but most of those are now dead, in battle not poisoned. Crimea, the Florida of the Soviet Union, has also lost people. The middle around Kharkov is wrecked. If Putin wins he has to occupy two hostile populations. The Ukrainians and the communists in the east. Neither population will vote for his party if they get a seat in the Duma. The communists will vote with the communists already there. Most do not know Putin is an anticommunist. His party is center right with a Slavic Nationalist bias. Only 53 % of Crimea will thank Putin by voting for him. Taking Ukraine would both cause massive sanctions and give his communist rivals a near majority in the Duma (the Russian parliament.)
Scott: Since all of the episodes now include a request to hit the LIKE button, you should put a “LIKE” button on the BW.C posts, even if it doesn’t do anything, so we can comply. 🙂
This doesn’t strike me as an “I will comply” type of group. 😉
Look! A Russian squirrel! Don’t look away…we insist!
Vaccimess Biden will try anything to take the attention off of the REAL invasion of our own borders in THIS country and the mandates falling apart. Always watch what the other hand of tyranny is doing.
Same thing with the placing of cargo ships 50 miles to 150 miles off the cost of California so as to skew the facts that LESS product is getting delivered to us. These games played by the leftist cabal are quite transparent, don’t you think?
So I am no logistics expert, but I can read a map and I see a couple of things.
1- Ukraine and Russia have a fairly lengthy border
2-There appear to be several usable rail lines from central Russia to towns just on the Russian side of the border.
3-There are multiple pipelines carrying both Natural Gas and Fuel Oil from Russia west into Eastern Europe, one supposes that those could carry Diesel for tanks and helicopters.
So here is my question, even given some warning that Russia was mustering a logistical train and tapping those pipelines, what would any other world leader do other than say we don’t want you to do it? And who is to say that Russia doesn’t already have some stockpiles of Fuel and Bullets near the border. I would think that Russia’s strategic petroleum reserves intended for their military out stocks ours, they have a history of being invaded after all.
Bill’s comments about bite and hold struck me as just the type of “incursion” that Biden has already said we’d do nothing about. So who will? Merkel? Whoever is in charge in Belarus?
I am trying to see, from Putin’s perspective, how he thinks he loses in this.
The main rail hub at Kharkov is trashed and was under artillery fire from Ukrainian strong points. Those strong points still stand. Its also not the main line of attack every one is assuming. That is hundreds of miles away from those lines of supply. The main line would run down either side of the Dnieper river with one army running through Chernobyl! Kiev is the key but we do not know if Russian air power can survive the gauntlet of US, EU and Israeli anti air assets deployed. We already know the antitank assets there are a match for most Russian armor. Any attack on Odessa, etc would be a navy side show.
xxx
I would definitely bet that the Ukrainian oligarchs are threatening Biden if he does not intervene. To protect them and their 10% for the big guy.
You do know that Burisma is closely tied to the pro Putin faction, right?
Steve’s right about logistics. It takes more than guns and boots to fight. It take beans and bullets too. But …
That’s not to say that Putin didn’t move massive forces up to those borders knowing he’d get nearly the full benefit from the threat immediately … Then trickle in the logistical necessities slowly under the radar to back it up.
When gauging an enemy it’s never a good idea to try to guess his intentions. It’s much more productive to rate his capabilities and capacities, then assume he’s going to use them and in the most unfavorable way possible to our side.
Because that’s how a real conflict is waged. It does no good, and is in fact harmful, to assume he’s going to give you the fight you expect just because you want things to go that way.
Sadly that’s exactly the sort of magical thinking the Left loves so dearly to apply to nearly everything.
Having been married to a Ukrainian woman for about ten years, I noticed that you had very little to say about the Ukrainian perspective on all this. Kyiv (Ukrainian spelling rather than Russian Imperial/Soviet spelling) has Churches that were old when Moscow was still a rural backwater. There is still a bit of lingering resentment toward the Muscovite upstarts. The Russian obsession with having buffer states is more an artifact of twentieth century history and Stalin’s paranoia than any deep historical trend.
The conflict between Ukrainian nationalism and Russian ambition is not new. Russia has no more natural sovereignty over Ukraine than England has natural sovereignty over Ireland. Ukrainian territorial integrity was guaranteed as part of the deal to get them to get rid of their nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR. Of course, such international guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.
The idea that national borders or even the existence of individual countries can be guaranteed by international agreement is baked into the current international system, but it is on very shaky ground whenever there are aggressively expansionist states. The question becomes whether such borders and such countries can be defended by third parties who have no immediate interest in a given conflict, without making the situation worse.
The US has no immediate interest in the conflict between Ukraine and an aggressive Russia. I would favor generous material and logistical support in the form of supplies and even weapons, but we have little or no reason to get directly involved in the conflict.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. As a youngster I had a friend whose grandparents were from Italy (maternal) and Lithuania (paternal) while mine were from Italy (maternal) and Poland (paternal). As for the 2 centuries preceding the US war for independence, Poland and Lithuania were one Grand Duchy it was interesting listening to our parents and grandparents discussions. I will say that his dad and paternal grandparents struck me as very nationalistic as Lithuania was independent until taken over by the Russian empire.
It is good to remind us that these countries are actually quite old and had been sovereign for much of the last millennia. I agree we should support Ukraine with arms, but I would not want to deploy forces.
Unfortunately, I don’t thing the current occupant of the White House has the necessary stones to push back. Maybe Angela Merkel does, but now that Germany is beholden to Russia for energy needs, probably not.
I read that 0n Feb 9, 1990 that if NATO got Germany NATO would not expand east of Germany. NATO & the US broke this and future promises.
Putin appears to be forcing NATO & the US to keep their promises.
There’s no good reason in hindsight to make a promise like that. In fact, no such promise was made at all.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who happened to be the leader of the Soviet Union on 09 Feb 1990 when this supposed promise was made, denied any such commitment was made by NATO at all.
You’re citing Putin’s propaganda, not actual historical fact. There was an agreement with the USSR that had the force of treaty not to place NATO foreign troops or nuclear weapons in former East German territory after the fall of the Warsaw Pact. That only applied to foreign troops in former East Germany, the Germans could put all the troops there they wanted to as it was now their own, reunited country.
It was also an agreement with a political entity that no longer exists. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is history. It is thereby expired.
Putin has creatively reinterpreted that agreement to mean that it implied no NATO expansion eastwards anywhere after the fall of the Warsaw Pact.
Putin is a lying git. You’re repeating his lies. Which makes you either badly and dangerously mistaken or malicious. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former.
I’m fairly certain after a lifetime of study and interaction in various parts of the world that it would always be a lethal mistake to credit the Russians with anything so noble as “holding us to our promises” even if those promises were genuinely made. Because historically Russia’s promises only last as long as they advantage Russia and not a second longer.
So … Strange that you should bring that up. I have to wonder where you’re getting your information? I have to wonder why you would think that the US and our NATO allies should be held to “promises” that were never made? This also makes me wonder how an American Conservative could take the side of lies perpetrated by the Russian Leadership …
Very suspicious. I’d appreciate it if you’d clear that up for us all.
Germany was already in NATO at that time. The negotiations revolved around convincing the USSR to keep its post WWII promise to eventually withdraw from occupied territory. The USSR itself would soon collapse and cease to be a viable party to agreements.
That too, with the proviso that obviously the USSR had no intentions of keeping that post WWII promise and only withdrew when it was forced to. The Warsaw Pact had fallen and using the leverage of that promise was just a way to allow the Kremlin to save some face and regroup in a way they’d be most likely to anyway.
Forcing someone to do what they said they’d do 40+ years earlier is hardly the USSR “keeping a promise”.
A bigger worry is that if our military comes off of a two front humiloation, the Biden* administration will need a big military win to keep them from looking incompetent. Take a guess at who they’ll be attacking to look strong. I’ll give you a hint – it’s who our president*, DOJ, FBI, and senior military leaders see as our country’s biggest threat. And it’s not Climastrology
Let me take a wild-assed-guess and say you mean us, the political opposition to Potato Joe and his band of merry Leftist anti-Americans?
Thank God for the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law.
There is at this time no law that would permit Potato Joe to violate that ACT but …
Violation of that Act for political gain would be a trigger for a more kinetic resistance both by the civilian population and the elements of our military that still supports America.
I’m not advocating that kind of resistance, just to be clear. I’m just saying that would be grounds for it, not that we should actually do that. Having seen a revolution up close and personal my opinion is that it’s a thing to be avoided until it can no longer be. The circumstances at that time have to be weighed against the devastating impact on our Republic. Before that, every political effort possible must be exhausted.
Great point; just keep in mind how rule of law has worked so well in deterring The Radical Left over the last 6 years. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but as a certain dementia patient once warned, “Gird your loins”
Yah, the breakdown of Law, with a capital “L” is a huge concern of mine. The Rule of Law is what stands between us and tyrants who will do whatever they like, laws or no laws. It’s vitally important.
Ever been in a situation where you’re following the rules and doing so you’re in the right and prevailing, then whoever is in charge changes the rules on you? Because they’re opposed to you and they have the power to create a no-win situation for you?
I hate that.
Now, that said, the Posse Comitatus Act does state “except when expressly authorized by law”.
“By law” means codified statute. Not executive order or agency rules and regulations or anything short of statutory law but actual Law enacted by Congress.
So …
The Left would have to get sufficient support to enact that sort of law and while it’s a possibility it’s not a probability. At least not the way things stand today.
Which means that if the Executive took such a step as using our own military against us, that would be solid, unequivocal grounds for impeachment.
If Potato Joe wants to get himself impeached that way, he’s got until this coming November to give it a try and see what happens. Past that point we should be relatively safe from that kind of thing until the next time the Left controls both houses of Congress and the White House. Even then they’ll have to pack SCOTUS to get away with it.
My personal unqualified guess is that Russia takes part of Ukraine at the same time that China takes Taiwan to humiliate the US. If it could be done without harming any of our sailaors I wouldn’t shed a tear if the Harvey Milk somehow got sunk in the fighting
They should require an all volunteer crew (guess who would volunteer?) and then paint that ship in rainbows and pink to make it an easier target …
Watching this on Rumble but I figured I would comment here as well. I liked to fast paced intro and I hope it helps more people see the video on YouTube!