Josh Marshall at TPM wrote/posted two articles referencing the US’ continual broadcasting of an imminent Russian invasion.
“I’ve mentioned before that while constant threats of an invasion are a powerful weapon for Russia, an actual invasion is fraught with danger. I don’t know if this is all a bluff. But I do think Russia is leery about the risks of actually following through and invading Ukraine. By continually saying an invasion is imminent, the U.S. is highlighting the fact that Russia keeps threatening but not acting. All threats and no action.”
“Rather than keeping everyone else on tenterhooks they’re looking more and more like they’re bluffing or unwilling or unable to actually follow through on their threats. Putin himself seemed to allude to this earlier this month when he accused the U.S. of trying to goad Russia into invading.”
“Could the U.S. actually force Russia’s hand or make it harder for Russia to back down? I doubt it? But it’s a reasonable question. What I do think they’re doing is attempting to turn Russia’s most effective weapon — the looming threat of military action — against them. Rather than keep the atmosphere of threat at a constant simmer, the U.S. keeps raising it to a fever pitch and then having the Russia actually not act.”
Part two:
“I think the other reason the administration keeps talking about an imminent invasions is that it helps them define the narrative should one occur. They want to ensure that the narrative is that Putin, without provocation, amassed a massive number of troops and then invaded. Brazen, unadulterated military aggression. It may seem obvious that that would be the narrative but it’s not. The narrative could be that Putin moved troops to the border and the West didn’t react strongly enough or leaned too hard on diplomacy or that something the US said or did provoked Russia into acting, etc., etc. I suspect that by ceaseless repetition the administration hopes to cement the narrative as brazen unadulterated military aggression, full stop. By relentlessly predicting it, they hope to define the lens through which it is understood.”
Whether Russia invades or not, it’s comforting knowing grownups are in charge rather than watching a fool tripping over himself trying to get Putin to “like him”.
Why Does The US Keep Highlighting The Imminence Of A Russian Invasion?
There has been a growing chorus of articles arguing that the Biden administration is trying to confront Russia on its own ground of information warfare. The key example is moving rapidly to declassify…
talkingpointsmemo.com
“I’ve mentioned before that while constant threats of an invasion are a powerful weapon for Russia, an actual invasion is fraught with danger. I don’t know if this is all a bluff. But I do think Russia is leery about the risks of actually following through and invading Ukraine. By continually saying an invasion is imminent, the U.S. is highlighting the fact that Russia keeps threatening but not acting. All threats and no action.”
“Rather than keeping everyone else on tenterhooks they’re looking more and more like they’re bluffing or unwilling or unable to actually follow through on their threats. Putin himself seemed to allude to this earlier this month when he accused the U.S. of trying to goad Russia into invading.”
“Could the U.S. actually force Russia’s hand or make it harder for Russia to back down? I doubt it? But it’s a reasonable question. What I do think they’re doing is attempting to turn Russia’s most effective weapon — the looming threat of military action — against them. Rather than keep the atmosphere of threat at a constant simmer, the U.S. keeps raising it to a fever pitch and then having the Russia actually not act.”
Part two:
Not Bad
This (below) is a tweet from over the weekend from the Russian Embassy in South Africa. It's an example of the dynamic I was talking about yesterday. U.S. diplomats have apparently told NATO allies…
talkingpointsmemo.com
“I think the other reason the administration keeps talking about an imminent invasions is that it helps them define the narrative should one occur. They want to ensure that the narrative is that Putin, without provocation, amassed a massive number of troops and then invaded. Brazen, unadulterated military aggression. It may seem obvious that that would be the narrative but it’s not. The narrative could be that Putin moved troops to the border and the West didn’t react strongly enough or leaned too hard on diplomacy or that something the US said or did provoked Russia into acting, etc., etc. I suspect that by ceaseless repetition the administration hopes to cement the narrative as brazen unadulterated military aggression, full stop. By relentlessly predicting it, they hope to define the lens through which it is understood.”
Whether Russia invades or not, it’s comforting knowing grownups are in charge rather than watching a fool tripping over himself trying to get Putin to “like him”.
Last edited:
