Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2022

Russia To Begin Formal Annexation of Ukrainian Territory

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:41 am



[guest post by Dana]

After the sham election in four occupied areas in Ukraine in which people freely voted at gunpoint to join Russia, President Putin is expected to announce the annexation tomorrow:

Russia will on Friday begin formally annexing up to 18% of Ukrainian territory, with President Vladimir Putin expected to host a ceremony in the Kremlin to declare four occupied Ukrainian territories part of Russia.

The ceremony would take place on Friday at 15:00 local time (08:00 ET) in the Kremlin’s St. George’s Hall, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Putin will deliver a speech and meet with Russian-backed leaders of the four occupied regions on the sidelines of the ceremony, he added.

Next week, Russia’s two houses of parliament – the State Duma and Federation Council – will consider the annexation.

Ukraine’s President Zelensky said that the Ukraine will “defend its people” in the russianoccupied regions:

“We will act to protect our people: both in the Kherson region, in the Zaporizhzhia region, in the Donbas, in the currently occupied areas of the Kharkiv region, and in the Crimea,” he said in a video posted on Telegram.

“This farce in the occupied territory cannot even be called an imitation of referendums,” he said.

Days earlier, he told the United Nations via video that there can be no negotiations with Putin:

“Russia’s recognition of the pseudo-referendums as ‘normal,’ implementation of the so-called Crimean scenario, and yet another attempt to annex Ukrainian territory means that there is nothing to talk about with (the) current Russian president,” he said in a video message at a meeting of the UN security council.

“In front of the eyes of the whole world, Russia is conducting an outright farce called a ‘referendum’ on the occupied territory of Ukraine,” he said.

“People are forced to fill out some papers for a TV picture under the muzzles of machine guns.

“The figures of the alleged results of the pseudo-referendum were drawn in advance,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration announced this week that another $1.1 billion will be given in additional security assistance for Ukraine.

The question now is whether President Biden’s response to the nuclear threat (he obviously favors non-nuclear options) along with his warning that the United States would “respond forcefully” to any Russian nuclear strike, will be enough to deter a humiliated Putin:

The nuclear planner and two other senior officers…don’t disagree with that view, and none of them advocate any use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. But to deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in the first place, the officers say, the United States needs to talk the nuclear talk—and not be held back by the fear of having to walk the walk.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” says a senior intelligence officer. “Threatening to respond forcefully and creating catastrophic consequences for Russia [without] suggesting nuclear war: Is that strong enough to deter Putin? And is it really clear? I’m not so sure.”

“We have to ponder whether other [non-nuclear] threats are powerful enough to deter Putin,” says a former bomber pilot who is now a Washington-based Pentagon officer.

President Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan offered this week that the White House has been working behind the scenes to stress to Russia the devastating consequences they will face if they use the nuclear option:

Washington has “communicated directly, privately, to the Russians at very high levels that there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine,” he said on ABC News.

“If Russia crosses this line…the United States will respond decisively,” Sullivan said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The Biden administration, he said, has “spelled out in greater detail exactly what that would mean” in its communications with the Kremlin.

The report notes that what the decisive response would be has not been made public.

Here is a blunt assessment of Sullivan’s comments:

“Threatening severe consequences without saying that the use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable under any circumstances, drawing a red-line … it isn’t clear that that is an adequate deterrent threat for Putin’s ears,” the Strategic Command civilian says.

“A general statement of deterrence didn’t prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only because Putin is reckless but also because ‘no matter what’ wasn’t the threat. It was the same as Sullivan’s threat today: ‘If you do it, we’ll respond.’ That’s not deterrence.”

–Dana

55 Responses to “Russia To Begin Formal Annexation of Ukrainian Territory”

  1. Please read the full report here which examines the lack of cohesion between the military and the White House regarding a possible nuclear strike by Russia.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. What annexation. I don’t recognize no stinking annexation. Never happened, and that goes for the Crimean region of Ukraine as well.

    Paul Montagu (753b42)

  3. There are some PP posters whose first response to the suggestion of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons is “Chernobyl,” and why would Putin attack territory he wants to conquer. This discounts the possibility that Putin may use nuclear artillery, for example, to contaminate territory from which the Russians have lost, basically saying “if I can’t have it, no one can.” I think this the greater danger.

    Call it nuclear spite.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  4. For the U.S. to ‘talk the nuclear talk’ means it is playing on Putin’s turf. It’s important to remember the U.S. and Russia have differing policy approaches on the use of nuclear weapons. For the U.S. they exist to deter; for Russia they’re an integrated element in defending Mother Russia– their ‘NATO’ as it were.

    Putin’s move is clever; “annexing” territory brings it under that Russian nuclear policy umbrella, complete w/nuclear weapons at the ready to defend “Russian territory.” [Remember when France was occupied, it became ‘part of the Reich’ and “defended” by Germans, too.]

    But he’s Vladimir Bluffin; nukes are messy– and counterproductive; their use simply doesn’t make much sense given the longevity of the aftereffects on very territories and environment he wants to absorb. Chernobyl is a glowing example literally at his doorstep.

    It’s disturbing how loosely so many government officials w/nuclear weapons in their arsenals– and even commenters- increasingly are so easy to chatter about using these lethal devices in so many scenarios yet endlessly fret about similar scaled devices falling into the hands of terrorists. That’s not setting a very good example. Their damage stretches beyond the immediate:

    Effects to the Human Body From Nuclear Fallout
    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/shimp1/

    Radioactive Fallout From Nuclear Weapons Testing
    https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing

    Comments from young, bureaucratic wags like Sullivan or bluster from piss-and-vinegar-filled Russian diplomouth pieces does little to build confidence that any of these ignorant boobs have the life experience, or the wisdom that comes with age, to know the genuine long term damage these devices cause. A month or two meeting at Fukushima seems appropriate– with stops at Hiroshima and Bikini on the way.

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  5. @3. Your immaturity is showing.

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  6. Rip thinks he’s Curt LeMay.

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  7. PP posters?

    Pro Peace posters.

    Bless them.

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  8. I care about Florida. Don’t give a crap about Ukraine. This will be my only post on the subject.

    NJRob (3a2362)

  9. @8. Whaddabout Puerto Rico? Desperate U.S. citizens there, too!

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  10. It is time to kill Putin. Otherwise he’ll invade Florida next.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  11. Part of the problem is that the US lacks sufficient tactical nuclear weapons to respond in kind.

    In 2021, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned nuclear weapons stored in five NATO member states across six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft; they are instead kept in WS3 underground vaults in national airbases, and the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes used to arm them remain in American hands. To be used, the bombs would be loaded onto dual-capable NATO-designated fighters. Each country is in the process of modernizing its nuclear-capable fighters to either the F-35A, the F-18 Super Hornet, or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

    Source

    The actual number varies between 100-200 depending on the source.

    Russia, however, has nearly 2,000 warheads, and many of its launch platforms are dual use:

    Most of Russia’s aircraft, along with its conventional missile and rocket launchers, can also deliver smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. Those weapons are designed for more targeted use on the battlefield than strategic arms such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, which give off tell-tale signs when their units are put on alert or mustered in training exercises.
    ………
    “They’ll never use a strategic nuclear weapon,” said the government official. “They’ll never launch an ICBM or put a [Tu-95] bomber loaded with megaton-class warheads. What they’ll do is use a short-range weapon. They have warheads that we call micro-nukes, with tens to hundreds of tons of explosive yield.”
    ……..
    “That’s still a big bomb,” the official said, referring to micro-nukes, but stressed that “you can focus on really small tactical targets. … You don’t have lots of radiation.”

    Russia is also known to have lower-yield atomic weapons for battlefield use that are much more powerful, including in the kiloton-range that are on par with or surpass the bombs dropped on Japan.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. It is time to kill Putin. Otherwise he’ll invade Florida next.

    That way, Joe can talk to him. 😉

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  13. A little more focus on “cohesion” and a little less on LGBTQMPSTUV might help.

    some more cohesion
    might even be possible
    sans Joe’s brain lesions

    Colonel Haiku (fd34d5)

  14. on the plus side, a nuclear holocaust will strengthen nato like never before

    rolls eyes

    JF (3acaa0)

  15. @11. Part of the problem is recognizing it; put down the mirror: your homework assignment for tonight, Rip:

    http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/john_f_kennedy-american.html

    For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.- John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963

    DCSCA (914cb8)

  16. This is where the government will hide during a nuclear war
    ……….
    Journalist Garrett Graff takes readers through the 60-year history of the government’s secret Doomsday plans to survive nuclear war in his painstakingly researched book Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself — While the Rest of Us Die (2017)…….

    He focuses on the Cold War-era government bunkers across the country that were built to house the President and various Washington elites — members of a so-called “shadow government” in the worst nuclear Armageddon scenario.
    ……..
    Raven Rock

    Lillington, NC • For military
    ……..
    Opened in 1953 and designed “to be the centerpiece of a large military emergency hub,” Raven Rock provided 100,000 feet of office space (not counting, Graff writes, “the corridors, bathrooms, dining facility, infirmary or communications and utilities areas”) that could hold about 1,400 people comfortably. Two sets of 34-ton blast doors and curved 1,000-foot-long tunnels reduce the impact of a bomb blast. The compound has undergone several rounds of upgrades — new buildings were added as well as updated technology and air filtration systems.
    ……..
    The underground city “added 27 new fuel tanks in 2012, each of which could hold 20,000 gallons,” Graff writes. Raven Rock is believed to have 900,000 square feet of office space now. Today it holds between 3,000 and 5,000 government employees — no familiies.
    ……..
    Peters Mountain

    Appalachian Mountains, Virginia • For intelligence agencies
    ……..
    Mount Weather

    Bluemont, Va. • For civilian government

    The President could end up at any of the Doomsday facilities, but in general terms Mount Weather is designed to hold the civilian leadership of the US government, including the President, the Supreme Court, Cabinet officials, and some senior congressional leaders.
    ………
    NORAD

    Colorado Springs, Colo. • For air defense
    ……..
    Five chambers inside Cheyenne mountain hold reservoirs for water and fuel. There is even an underground lake, which requires rowboats to patrol. In the beginning, nearly $40 million went into equipping it with the best computers and electronics, including three room-sized Philco 212 computers and 15 console displays (cutting edge technology at the time). During an emergency, NORAD could house 1,000 people for a month.

    The Pentagon nearly closed the book on the facility, which costs about $250 million a year to operate, but reversed course after 9/11 — installing about $700 million in communications and computer upgrades five years after the attacks. One $15 million project in 2004 nearly doubled the main command center’s 540 square feet to accommodate more staff.

    After a brief return to standby mode in 2006, the Obama administration brought NORAD back to life. …….
    ……..
    White House Front Lawn

    Washington, D.C. • For the President and key officials
    ……..
    “There’s definitely a bunker under the White House, known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), which is where Dick Cheney was rushed on September 11th and where he spent the day helping to lead the government’s response. ……
    …….
    ………

    For everyone else, bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  17. Russian nuke attack on Ukraine would be attack on NATO: Graham
    ……..
    The South Carolina Republican told reporters that the US and its Western allies would have to devise an “overwhelming” response that would be “catastrophic” to Russia should that doomsday scenario play out.
    ………
    “The radiation would not be confined to Ukraine, you would be irradiating parts of Europe that are under the NATO banner,” he added.

    “So, if that day ever comes — and I hope and pray it doesn’t — that should be considered by NATO writ large and the United States as an attack by Russia on NATO itself.”
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  18. Putin’s sham-wow elections.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. Who put the boom in the bomb bah bomb bah bomb
    Who put the nuke up Joe’s rama lama ding dong

    Colonel Haiku (fd34d5)

  20. The South Carolina Republican told reporters that the US and its Western allies would have to devise an “overwhelming” response that would be “catastrophic” to Russia should that doomsday scenario play out.

    MEMO to Sweet-Cheeks: Rip already told you the response: ‘bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.’

    We know you’ll love it, too.

    DCSCA (80cb73)

  21. @20. Who put the nuke up Joe’s rama lama ding dong

    The next time the idiot bloviates about gas prices dropping, light the frigging fuse:

    just got gasoline: Shell regular: $7.20/gal.,/ premium, $7.40/gal.,/Hi-test, $7.60/gal.

    And no, Joe– they don’t give out Green Stamps anymore.

    DCSCA (80cb73)

  22. “The figures of the alleged results of the pseudo-referendum were drawn in advance,” he said.

    That’swhat I once read, they used todoin Czechoslovakia. It wasn’tonly the no competition elections. They just made up the results.

    It used to be 98% or 99%. Putin prefers numbers in the 70s or 80s.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  23. “if I can’t have it, no one can.” I think this the greater danger.

    Call it nuclear spite.

    Call it what it is: immaturity.

    DCSCA (80cb73)

  24. Russia will have egg all over its face if it uses nukes, because it will be an admission that its military couldn’t defeat Ukraine using conventional weaponry.

    Anyone capable of rational thought will see through the annexation ruse should “defending the motherland” be used as justification for dropping a nuke.

    norcal (da5491)

  25. Cold comfort.

    Colonel Haiku (fd34d5)

  26. Here’s a stray thought: Perhaps a few opposition Western politicians should start to speculate about territorial losses — for Putin.

    For example, in the US, Texas Senator Ted Cruz might point to the large number of men leaving Russia, and suggest a place for them. Perhaps St. Petersburg should become a “free city”, he could suggest. Subject, of course to an internationally-supervised referendum.

    (You want opposition politicians doing this, because that keeps it from looking like a government trial balloon, but still brings up the issue.)

    (Cross posted at Political Betting.)

    Jim Miller (85fd03)

  27. Jim Miller,

    IIRC, a couple of law professors floated the idea in the NYT and I think the Wall Street Journal at the beginning of the war. They suggested that the US be a place of refuge for the defectors. Perhaps it will gain more traction now.

    Dana (1225fc)

  28. Meanwhile, the Biden administration announced this week that another $1.1 billion will be given in additional security assistance for Ukraine.

    And NONE of them are American taxpayers-.

    Florida needs this $. Puerto Rico needs this $.

    Ukraine does not.

    DCSCA (51ceb0)

  29. Dana – Thanks for the info.

    Jim Miller (85fd03)

  30. ukraine is a great reason to start ww3 like franz ferdinand was a great reason to start ww1

    the people who think this is worth getting involved in and wasting billions need to get a brain scan

    JF (55e889)

  31. Part of the problem is that the US lacks sufficient tactical nuclear weapons to respond in kind.

    Also, we lack the stupidity to do so. Instead, we have NATO, and NATO can do at least as well as the Ukrainians at pushing the Russians out.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  32. It’s really amazing the way the US-Russia Bund members here evoke defeatism and nuclear horror. The answer to “What if they use nuclear weapons?” is much the same as it always has been.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  33. Part of the problem is that the US lacks sufficient tactical nuclear weapons to respond in kind.

    Also, we lack the stupidity to do so. Instead, we have NATO, and NATO can do at least as well as the Ukrainians at pushing the Russians out.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 9/29/2022 @ 5:48 pm

    The only nuclear weapons NATO has are US weapons. The question is not whether the Ukrainians can push the Russians out (probably not completely) but how does NATO retaliate if the Russians use its micro-nuclear weapons (such as nuclear artillery) to either launch an EMP attack on Ukraine or Europe, or a demonstration shot over the Black or Baltic Sea, or an attack to deny Ukraine the option of re-occupying its territory through nuclear contamination. Per Dana’s Newsweek link, somebody better be thinking about it. Because I don’t think Putin cares about the consequences.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  34. Some people just want to bury their heads in the sand.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. Russian nuke attack on Ukraine would be attack on NATO: Graham

    You’d think Lindsey would be tired of being the poster child for abortion given his stance on same. 😉

    DCSCA (81fed8)

  36. @34. The only nuclear weapons NATO has are US weapons.

    =sigh= Three of NATO’s members are nuclear weapons states: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. -source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

    @35. Some people just want to bury their heads in the sand.

    Indeed; time for you to come up for air.

    DCSCA (81fed8)

  37. #33. Amen, Kevin.

    Dmitri has a good rundown on the current situation with Putin’s war of aggression. A key nugget is that Lyman is cut off and it’s only a matter of time before the Ukrainian freedom fighters retake this city, but we’re not hearing because the Ukrainian side keeping it mum. Kherson is not long from being reclaimed.

    Paul Montagu (753b42)

  38. The answer to “What if they use nuclear weapons?” is much the same as it always has been.

    Let’s ask the Japanese.

    DCSCA (81fed8)

  39. The only nuclear weapons NATO has are US weapons.

    NATO has plenty of regular forces. It is one thing for Putin to nuke Ukrainians — we can respond conventionally. It is an entirely different matter for Putin to nuke NATO troops. That falls into the category of “killing your country in an afternoon.”

    And, again, if we actually think that Putin is that far gone, we need to kill him RIGHT NOW. Everyone will thank us, especially the Russians.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  40. @34:

    And maybe no body is being clear: NATO goes to war with Russia; Russia loses. “Nuking Ukraine” or some other silly act, is quite a bit different than “nuking NATO.” FRANCE has enough nuclear missiles to destroy Russia. Putin knows this.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  41. At this point, the best scenario for Russia is they vacate all of Ukraine (including Crimea) and don’t also lose Kaliningrad. There are no good options for Putin except “quick” or “slow.”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  42. Ignorance is bliss; lots of happy of Club Nukem members out tonight.

    https://themillenniumreport.com/2015/08/how-a-russian-submarine-officer-saved-the-world-from-nuclear-war/

    The man who saved the world: The Soviet submariner who single-handedly averted WWIII at height of the Cuban Missile Crisis

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208342/Soviet-submariner-single-handedly-averted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html

    Vasili Arkhipov was a Soviet naval officer who, upon making a split second decision, prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis from escalating into a nuclear war. It is fitting to begin three years after Mr. Arkhipov’s death. On October 13, 2002, on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the director of the National Security Archive Thomas Blanton remarked that “a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world.”

    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/cold-war/vasili-cuban-missile-crisis.html?edg-c=1

    DCSCA (81fed8)

  43. A Moscow Trump Tower in our time!

    nk (938fcb)

  44. And maybe no body is being clear: NATO goes to war with Russia; Russia loses.

    NATO’s posture- and strength- has been as a defensive alliance. ‘Going to war with Russia’ as an aggressor plays right into Putin’s hand, validating what Russia’s opposition has been to NATO all along. NATO must maintain a defensive stance. It’s a strength- as long as members pay their share.

    DCSCA (8b0a84)

  45. A Moscow Trump Tower in our time!

    As long as Trump lives there.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  46. ‘Going to war with Russia’ as an aggressor plays right into Putin’s hand

    Just as going to war with Hitler played right into his hands.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  47. @47. There was no NATO in 1939, Kev.

    DCSCA (4afbfe)

  48. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 9/29/2022 @ 11:55 am

    The US is the only NATO country with tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The British and French nuclear forces consist of submarine launched strategic nuclear missiles only. They are independent of the NATO military command.

    The strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States, are the supreme guarantee of the security of the Alliance. The independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France have a deterrent role of their own and contribute significantly to the overall security of the Alliance. These Allies’ separate centres of decision-making contribute to deterrence by complicating the calculations of potential adversaries. NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and the contributions of Allies concerned. National contributions of dual-capable aircraft to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission remain central to this effort.

    Source p. 8.

    Rip Murdock (5192cb)

  49. @47. Worth viewing:

    How Hitler Lost The War

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX_0FpXEK5M

    DCSCA (4afbfe)

  50. Instead of outlining anything in the vicinity of a legitimate casus belli, Putin is spouting gibberish like this

    “We don’t want the gays and the lesbians and the transgenders in Russia”…

    No idea what this has got to do with anything – remember, this is a press conference ostensibly to announce the annexation of new “territories” into Russia.

    And this.

    Putin unironically claims Russia wants to see the “end of authoritarianism”.

    And then starts talking about Satanism.

    Paul Montagu (753b42)

  51. The US should announce the annexation of Kamchatka.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  52. @51: Cue General Ripper.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  53. And then (Putin) starts talking about Satanism.

    Paul Montagu (753b42) — 9/30/2022 @ 6:00 am

    TrumpWorld approves.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  54. America rejected President Trump. Obviously under Satan’s thrall.

    Speaking of thralldom, it took less than 50 years to create the American labradoodle. How many generations of thralldom, periodic massacres and purges, feudalism and communism, were really needed to make the majority of Russians a mindless mass that follows its Putin no matter what?

    nk (b9023d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1794 secs.