Putin’s Russia Is On The Move… Or Is It?

“US intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops,” according to officials in Washington and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post. President Vladimir Putin this week is making blatant demands of President Biden that he guarantee the United States will not send any troops to join NATO in response to a possible Russian offensive or help the Ukraine in any way. In addition, he is demanding that Biden sign a statement promising the United States will not support an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine or Georgia while also limiting US and NATO-related military activity near Russia’s borders.

Washington Post writer Shane Harris, referring to the leaked intelligence document in the paper, writes that an unnamed Biden Administration official told him that “The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia’s snap exercise near Ukraine’s borders… The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment.” Russian forces already appear to be massing in four locations in preparation for an offensive sometime soon after Christmas. According to the US intelligence document, 50 battlefield tactical groups are deployed, along with “newly arrived” tanks and artillery. US satellite imagery from November indicates that the size of the buildup of troops along the Ukrainian border enables Putin to call for a rapid escalation if he decides to move.

Officials in Washington have not said yet whether they believe Putin has already made the decision to invade the Ukraine. However, all signs indicate an attack is imminent in the coming weeks. Earlier this year Russian forces, in what was labeled a military exercise, rehearsed for a ground and air invasion along the Ukrainian border. After ending the “exercise” Russian forces left heavy military equipment in the area. The forward basing of materiel is a further indication of Russia’s intent to attack in the near future. The US intelligence document leaked to the Washington Post says the placement of “Equipment may be left behind at different training ranges to enable a rapid, final buildup.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in public comments this week, said “We must prepare for all contingencies,” echoing Putin’s warning to the US to stay away and not allow NATO to interfere. Lavrov declared that “The nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning.” Russia, long known for its extensive propaganda campaigns, is using its intelligence operatives to help spin the story. A US official said: “Recent information also indicates that Russian officials proposed adjusting Russia’s information operations against Ukraine to emphasize the narrative that Ukrainian leaders had been installed by the West, harbored a hatred for the ‘Russian world,’ and were acting against the interests of the Ukrainian people.”

You can use this herbal supplement daily two times with viagra online store milk or water. You will regain the confidence to viagra canada pharmacy enjoy intimate moments with their beautiful female. Q-Link constantly tunes the body’s continue reading now generic viagra online natural life-supporting frequencies.” For most of my life, I have had stress issues. It is not intended to boost libido, semen production or even always in stock viagra online absence of sperm.

In a recent meeting with Ukrainian officials, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned officials in Kiev not to give Russia any pretext for invasion. Yet twenty-four hours after warning Putin that the US would impose sanctions on Russia if it invaded the Ukraine, Biden responded to a reporter’s question about possible US troop involvement by stating “That is not on the table.” Biden’s clearly-worded statement is interpreted by some political analysts in Moscow as the US President, in effect, giving Putin a “go ahead” signal by revealing the US military will step aside if Russian troops invade its neighbor. In an earlier statement Karine Jean-Pierre, the deputy White House press secretary, appeared to contradict Biden when she said “… we are preparing for all contingencies, as we have been doing for weeks now, including preparing specific robust responses to Russian escalation should they be required.” Putin must have heard the mixed signals coming out of Washington and taken it as carte blanche for his plan.

While Putin may only be attempting a diplomatic maneuver against admission of the Ukraine into NATO, without the use of a military force, it is an unlikely scenario. Under NATO rules a nation-state must be free of foreign forces controlling any part of its territory before it can qualify to become a Member State. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia qualify for full membership in NATO due to the occupation of their territory by Russian military forces. The more likely scenario is that Putin is seizing an opportunity given the recent US debacle during its withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. Putin may assume it is on the minds of leaders in Washington and that none have the political willpower to get involved in another costly conflict that could escalate quickly to war throughout the European continent.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

Photo: File photo of Russian tank (Russian Defence Ministry)

Quick Analysis

Democrats vs. Free Speech

There is a dangerous belief that all major politicians support freedom of speech. Increasingly, that illusion is being exposed. Many first became aware of the determination to stamp out opposition speech when the Biden Administration sought to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.” Statements by major figures such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Climate envoy John Kerry, and New York Senator Charles Schumer have exposed the disdain many leftist Democrats have for the First Amendment. Hillary Clinton actually suggested that Americans should be “criminally charged” for expressing views she opposes. Kerry was quite blunt. He suggested that the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it [ideas which the left disagrees with] out of existence.” While Senator Schumer mentions the First Amendment by name, saying the “First Amendment is not absolute,” most progressive leaders use the phrase “disinformation.” They define disinformation, of course, as anything that disagrees with their point of view. A Gatestone review recently quoted vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s statement that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” The study also noted that “In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.” The New York Post (D-Mass.) calling for companies like Amazon to use “enlightened” algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices. The Future of Free Speech organization Warns that “The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges … open democracies have implemented restrictive measures.” Reason, a bipartisan publication, found that Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims, suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best achieve their aims. And while they’re generally more open to the suppression of online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based on whether this speech supports their side. While many Progressive media analysts side with pro-censorship politicians, some are raising alarms. Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Dustin Olson, managing partner of American Pulse Research & Polling and the founder of the political consulting firm Olson Strategies & Advertising, warns that “Once a solid pillar of American society, free speech seems to be cracking. It used to be an American principle that the everyday American citizen could agree on, a universal given. But recent surveys reveal that this fundamental value is increasingly up for debate, and the speed of this change is alarming. In a new RealClear Opinion Research poll, nearly half of Democrats are comfortable openly admitting to a stranger over the phone that they support limiting what people can say. A startling 47 percent said that speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 52 percent of Democrats approved of government censoring social media posts for “national security.” Even more shocking, a third of Democrats believe Americans have “too much freedom.” It is not difficult to understand why progressives, who currently control the Democrat Party, are so opposed to the First Amendment. Their policies, as a whole, have failed decisively. The economy. Particularly regarding inflation, has suffered significantly due to leftist ideas. Displays of weakness abroad have invited aggression. Millions of illegals have been allowed to enter the nation unchecked, bringing in increases in crime, vast deaths from Fentanyl, job losses for U.S. citizens, sex trafficking, and increased competition for affordable houses. Local governments are suffering severe strains in their budgets. And, of course, the national debt has soared. In a fair discussion or debate, these results would be devasting for the left. Recognizing this reality, progressives have resorted to censorship. Illustration: Pixabay