China vs Taiwan and other potential invasions/conflicts of concern (previously included Russia & Ukraine)

[LOL The Irony]

NATO hasn't suddenly gained responsibility for responding to an attack on Réunion (or the Falklands where it might have been useful in 1982!).

To be fair, Reagan did give us some weapons that he wasn't supposed to and then a Vulcan wound up in Brazil with said weapons on show.

 

[DarloRich]

To be fair, Reagan did give us some weapons that he wasn't supposed to and then a Vulcan wound up in Brazil with said weapons on show.

That is interesting
Do you know which weapons?

 

[ainsworth74]

The 'North of the Tropic of Cancer' phrase would seem to exclude parts of the USA! Hawaii and Puerto Rico are both south of the Tropic of Cancer. Have I read that correctly?

Absolutely! Apparently there was a US Department of Defense legal opinion in the 1960s that concluded that if Hawaii was attacked then Article 5 couldn't be used.

 

[birchesgreen]

That is interesting
Do you know which weapons?

Shrike anti-radar missiles, the Brazilians nicked the missile off the Vulcan.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Absolutely! Apparently there was a US Department of Defense legal opinion in the 1960s that concluded that if Hawaii was attacked then Article 5 couldn't be used.

Wow! That seems a surprising oversight by the people who drafted the treaty - especially considering that it was an attack on Hawaii that brought the US into WWII - and that would have been very recent history at the time.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That is interesting
Do you know which weapons?

AMG-45 Shrike missiles. Here's a video by Mark Felton on the subject;

 

[adc82140]

The reaction of the Western countries is exactly what Putin wants. We are playing right in to his hands. He loves to make us play the guessing game and he is the centre of attention. I don't believe he intends to "invade" Ukraine. That's not how he operates. He'll stir up something in the east with the separatists, but any action will have deniability. There has been some utter nonsense coming from the mouths of people in Westminster today. "Europe is the closest to war for 70 years". That's an insult to all those who lost their lives in the Balkans in the 1990s. Was that not a war? Nor will tanks be trundling up Tunbridge Wells High Street, or anywhere else in a NATO country.

MPs Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood are all for sending combat troops to Ukraine and facing off Russia. Naive comments like that are why they are not government ministers. Why on earth would we do that and risk escalation to the point of a potential nuclear exchange?

 

[brad465]

Absolutely! Apparently there was a US Department of Defense legal opinion in the 1960s that concluded that if Hawaii was attacked then Article 5 couldn't be used.

Wow! That seems a surprising oversight by the people who drafted the treaty - especially considering that it was an attack on Hawaii that brought the US into WWII - and that would have been very recent history at the time.

Perhaps this is a reason North Korea has threatened attacking Guam before, which is a US territory, not just because it's relatively close to said potential attacker, but as its at 13 degrees North would be well out of NATO jurisdiction.

 

[DarloRich]

Shrike anti-radar missiles, the Brazilians nicked the missile off the Vulcan.

AMG-45 Shrike missiles. Here's a video by Mark Felton on the subject;

thanks - i had forgotten baout those weapions/missions.

 

[TheEdge]

thanks - i had forgotten baout those weapions/missions.

Quite a lot of this went on. There was a lot of "not help" going on. The UK suddenly found its NATO obligations covered for a short time, IIRC either the NZ or Australian navy offered to send ships to the North Atlantic to free RN ships up. The US expeditated the delivery of Sidewinder AIM-9L and got very good at being "elsewhere" on Ascension Island when the British helped themselves to things. Chile upped its sabre rattling too...

The Russians did it the other way and several other countries were quite willing to sell their Exocets to Argentina.

 

[GWRtom]

U.S official now reporting that some Russian units are moving up to attack positions closer to the border from their assembly areas, long range artillery and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are also taking up firing positions.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1493294188716335110


The US embassy is also in the process of destroying sensitive computer systems, and relocating personal to Lviv.
https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1493297405692940290

 

[squizzler]

MPs Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood are all for sending combat troops to Ukraine and facing off Russia. Naive comments like that are why they are not government ministers. Why on earth would we do that and risk escalation to the point of a potential nuclear exchange?

I agree with these more hawkish MPs. Sending troops to Ukraine - at their request after all - seems to me desirable. Any fule kno Russia would not risk direct confrontation with NATO squaddies, which is why they are so worried that Ukraine will fall under NATO umbrella in the first place.

And no, there would be no nuclear war. Hitler in WW2, and Saddam in first gulf war, never used their chemical Arsenal despite possessing these “WMD”. Dicatators may be crazy but generally not have a death wish.

 

[nanstallon]

Perhaps this is a reason North Korea has threatened attacking Guam before, which is a US territory, not just because it's relatively close to said potential attacker, but as its at 13 degrees North would be well out of NATO jurisdiction.

I suspect that the USA would be perfectly capable of defending Guam, without needing to call on her NATO partners for assistance.

 

[Scotrail314209]

U.S official now reporting that some Russian units are moving up to attack positions closer to the border from their assembly areas, long range artillery and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are also taking up firing positions.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1493294188716335110


The US embassy is also in the process of destroying sensitive computer systems, and relocating personal to Lviv.
https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1493297405692940290

Oh wonderful.

So the US intelligence may not be wrong then?

 

[nanstallon]

Was it wise for the West to say at the outset that it would not defend Ukraine? It might have been better to let Putin worry that NATO just possibly might do so. NATO has in the past defended non-members, and taken military action in the absence of an attack against on eof its members - e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Was it wise for the West to say at the outset that it would not defend Ukraine? It might have been better to let Putin worry that NATO just possibly might do so. NATO has in the past defended non-members, and taken military action in the absence of an attack against on eof its members - e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan.

In a way, I am quite glad that we aren't sending in any proper military retaliation should they invade. We don't need WW3 to kick off.

However, I do think the West should've kept their mouth shut about not defending Ukraine as you said. It would lessen the chances of an invasion as Putin wouldn't know if there would be retaliation. I believe the lacklustre response from the West was seen as practically giving Russia a free pass to take Ukraine.

 

[nanstallon]

In a way, I am quite glad that we aren't sending in any proper military retaliation should they invade. We don't need WW3 to kick off.

However, I do think the West should've kept their mouth shut about not defending Ukraine as you said. It would lessen the chances of an invasion as Putin wouldn't know if there would be retaliation. I believe the lacklustre response from the West was seen as practically giving Russia a free pass to take Ukraine.

There is a lot of sense in keeping your adversary guessing. Putin certainly knows that.

 

[GS250]

The reaction of the Western countries is exactly what Putin wants. We are playing right in to his hands. He loves to make us play the guessing game and he is the centre of attention. I don't believe he intends to "invade" Ukraine. That's not how he operates. He'll stir up something in the east with the separatists, but any action will have deniability. There has been some utter nonsense coming from the mouths of people in Westminster today. "Europe is the closest to war for 70 years". That's an insult to all those who lost their lives in the Balkans in the 1990s. Was that not a war? Nor will tanks be trundling up Tunbridge Wells High Street, or anywhere else in a NATO country.

MPs Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood are all for sending combat troops to Ukraine and facing off Russia. Naive comments like that are why they are not government ministers. Why on earth would we do that and risk escalation to the point of a potential nuclear exchange?

This is exactly what Putin has done. By provoking a reaction from the West he's managed to gain the World's attention to what he (probably rightly) sees as potential NATO expansion to his border. The main stream media have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Illustrations of SU fighter aircraft, tanks etc in their papers. All the 'what if' scenarios being depicted. One thing that many don't realise, is that invading another country, even with a relatively flat and passable terrain is no mean feat. Even with a numerically superior advantage you can soon come unstuck. Once the body bags start being transported home there will be a huge amount of pressure on the aggressor to end the conflict swiftly. Putin and the Russian population are extremely aware of the possible consequences of an invasion. And that's regardless of intervention by the West. Russia has lost too many young lives in the past to simply swagger into battle with an air of superiority.

As for those two absolute twits above. They remind me of someone I heard on the news a while back. Attempting to justify the use of nuclear weapons because they are 'that much more accurate and thus lower yield' than the previous generation. Ok...so rather than have several 1Mt devices falling onto London and our various cities, we get 150kt devices instead. Ok...I'll sleep much better now knowing that. I think its obvious the use of 'small' battlefield nuclear weapons in Ukraine would soon escalate to ICBM's being lobbed across the World. No thanks. I'd rather Ukraine never join NATO or at worst, become annexed or fully part of Russia. Yes there would be ramifications for the rest of the World but better than MAD.

 

[Gostav]

This is exactly what Putin has done. By provoking a reaction from the West he's managed to gain the World's attention to what he (probably rightly) sees as potential NATO expansion to his border. The main stream media have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Illustrations of SU fighter aircraft, tanks etc in their papers. All the 'what if' scenarios being depicted. One thing that many don't realise, is that invading another country, even with a relatively flat and passable terrain is no mean feat. Even with a numerically superior advantage you can soon come unstuck. Once the body bags start being transported home there will be a huge amount of pressure on the aggressor to end the conflict swiftly. Putin and the Russian population are extremely aware of the possible consequences of an invasion. And that's regardless of intervention by the West. Russia has lost too many young lives in the past to simply swagger into battle with an air of superiority.

As for those two absolute twits above. They remind me of someone I heard on the news a while back. Attempting to justify the use of nuclear weapons because they are 'that much more accurate and thus lower yield' than the previous generation. Ok...so rather than have several 1Mt devices falling onto London and our various cities, we get 150kt devices instead. Ok...I'll sleep much better now knowing that. I think its obvious the use of 'small' battlefield nuclear weapons in Ukraine would soon escalate to ICBM's being lobbed across the World. No thanks. I'd rather Ukraine never join NATO or at worst, become annexed or fully part of Russia. Yes there would be ramifications for the rest of the World but better than MAD.

In addition, capital is already fleeing from Ukraine and is starting to affect the EU, oil prices are also rising sharply.
From Idnes.cz, Czech news

Barel ropy atakuje hranici sta dolarů. Hrozí zpomalení hospodářského růstu - iDNES.cz

Cena ropy na světových trzích stoupá. Blíží se hranici 100 dolarů za barel a situace kolem ní je podle Mezinárodní agentury pro energii velmi napjatá. Její růst zásadně přiživuje obecné inflační tlaky, s nimiž bojuje většina zemí celého světa. Stoupající cena produktu zároveň může přibrzdit i...

www.idnes.cz

A barrel of oil attacks the limit of a hundred dollars. Economic growth is in danger of slowing down

 

[Trackman]

So the US intelligence may not be wrong then?

Putin is winding them up.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Gotta ask, what would happen if no invasion occurs this week? The West and the media would look like utter fools. I did hear that February 16th is the target date for an invasion.

However this now seems to have been a miscommunication.

Ukraine president issues clarification on earlier statement that Russia will attack Wednesday

Volodymyr Zelenskyy now says the prediction that the attack would come Feb. 16 was spread by the media and is not an official date.

www.nbcnews.com

Hours after he issued a global statement saying he had heard Russia would attack his country on Feb. 16, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a clarification of his prediction Monday, explaining that he was referring only to media reports of a possible attack.

The earlier statement spooked the markets and led to widespread headlines and media reports.


“We are told that February 16 will be the day of the attack,” Zelenskyy said in a video statement posted on Facebook.
However, after his comments were taken by many at face value, his spokesman, Sergii Nykyforov, said that the president, who is a former comedian, was only saying what has been reported elsewhere.
“The president referred to a date that was spread by the media,” the spokesman told NBC News.
Some observers said Zelenskyy appeared to Ukrainian speakers to have been sarcastic when discussing the possible date of an attack

 

[Gostav]

Gotta ask, what would happen if no invasion occurs this week? The West and the media would look like utter fools. I did hear that February 16th is the target date for an invasion.

However this now seems to have been a miscommunication.

Ukraine president issues clarification on earlier statement that Russia will attack Wednesday

Volodymyr Zelenskyy now says the prediction that the attack would come Feb. 16 was spread by the media and is not an official date.

www.nbcnews.com

Due to the tense situation, capital has been withdrawn from Ukraine and even some EU countries (An unverifiable number I heard - at least $20 billion were withdrawn from Ukraine), which will be a shock to the stability of the euro. Where does the withdrawn capital going? Of course, America.

 

[DarloRich]

Gotta ask, what would happen if no invasion occurs this week?

What happens? Everyone says they won & everyone saves face.

Putin says he showed he can control the west. NATO say a show of united force turned the Russians, the EU say thier diplomacy won the day and Johnson says world beating vaccine roll out.

 

[squizzler]

I almost feel sorry for the Russian tank or mechanised infantry crews who are not going to be stupid and will know what awaits them. Reading up on modern anti-tank rockets such as the US Javelin or French MMP the free world is supplying to Ukraine, they are pretty nasty bits of kit. Apparently they shoot up into the sky then plunge down on the hapless tank, punching through the thinner top armour. The poor crew of vehicles targeted won't stand a chance. These weapons are designed precisely to destroy Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

The country will also be awash with anti-air systems like Stinger that would do a similar number on their air support, helicopter gunships and transport. Presumably they remain as effective against Russian equipment as they were in Afghanistan - both sides will have upgraded since, although Russian tanks and planes remain mostly cold war era, or slightly warmed over versions thereof.

Putin must realise he would be sending his troops into their graves if he were to order an invasion. I remain convinced it is a bluff.

I believe the lacklustre response from the West was seen as practically giving Russia a free pass to take Ukraine.

A cynic might wonder if Ukraine is being set as a trap to draw Putin into a wasteful war that will bleed Russia dry. Why else would the free world be so lacklustre in its dealings with Putin?

 

[DarloRich]

Putin must realise he would be sending his troops into their graves if he were to order an invasion. I remain convinced it is a bluff.

There aren't, surely, enough soldiers to invade and hold Ukraine. There are enough troops to bite of a bit of territory and hold that. I don't think they want all of Ukraine. They want a change of regime

 

[ainsworth74]

U.S official now reporting that some Russian units are moving up to attack positions closer to the border from their assembly areas, long range artillery and Multiple Launch Rocket Systems are also taking up firing positions.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1493294188716335110


The US embassy is also in the process of destroying sensitive computer systems, and relocating personal to Lviv.
https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1493297405692940290

Situation now seems to be softening again. Reports breaking that some Russian troops are being pulled back having "completed their exercises" but there still remain plenty of troops on the boarder. Perhaps more encouragingly there was the extremely choreographed meeting last night between Putin and Lavrov in which the following exchange occurred:

Sergey Viktorovich, in your opinion, is there a chance to agree, to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern, or is it just an attempt to drag us into an endless negotiation process that has no logical conclusion?

Vladimir Vladimirovich, you have already said more than once — you, and other representatives of the Russian Federation — that we warn against endless discussions on issues that need to be resolved today. But still, I must say that there is always a chance … It seems to me that our possibilities are far from being exhausted. Of course, they should not continue indefinitely, but at this stage I would suggest that they be continued and increased.

OK.

[The OK has been translated also as "alirght" or "good"]

Which suggests that Putin is willing to continue talking so hopefully no war this week.

Gotta ask, what would happen if no invasion occurs this week?

We all do this again next week and the week after until either they invade, Ukraine/the West make significant concessions or the Russian troops go home. I wouldn't get fixated on "oh there was no invasion, therefore Western intelligence was wrong!". The intel game is hardly ever perfect and it's a moveable feast. I have no problem believing that over the weekend the intelligence conclusion was the invasion is on for Wednesday 16 February but by the end of Monday that assessment was out of date. The enemy gets a vote and can change their plans.

Putin must realise he would be sending his troops into their graves if he were to order an invasion. I remain convinced it is a bluff.

Probably? But the chance that it isn't a bluff is far higher than I'm personally comfortable with. I do also wonder if there's an element of trying to "normalise" the situation. Deploying 120,000 troops to the Ukrainian border stirred up a hornets nest from the West with diplomatic measures and armament shipments. If they do it again will the reaction be as strong? After all the last time the Russians deployed 120,000 troops it came to nothing...

A cynic might wonder if Ukraine is being set as a trap to draw Putin into a wasteful war that will bleed Russia dry.

Unless the Russians are trying to trap themselves I'm not sure how anyone is setting a trap for them

Particularly as the trap is very easy to avoid. Just don't invade another sovereign state!

Why else would the free world be so lacklustre in its dealings with Putin?

Because our leaders are, on the whole, pathetic who would rather pretend the world was as they wanted it to be not as it is. Dealing with a resurgent Russia who is wiling to throw their weight around and completely ignore international law and agreements when it suits is hard and expensive to deal with. One thing this situation should have made crystal clear is that the cupboard is rather bare throughout the West in terms of military forces. We still have Gucci kit but we don't have very much of it. Honourable exceptions to people like the Poles and the Baltic States. Responding to Russian strength means spending £££ which politicians are loathe to do. Even during the Cold War when there were 20,000 Warsaw Pact tanks poised on the Inner German border they tried to avoid spending if they could. Let alone after a few decades of peace. That's quite apart from the politicians who are used to dealing with nice friendly people who stick to the rules. Rather than the Russians who don't give a damn what you think about them and will do whatever it takes to advance their own objectives.

Then of course in Britain we have the problem of having allowed Russian money to slosh around London (and the Tory party). When so many people have gotten rich off the back of Russian money in the property and legal system and so many of them are either Tory party members, or donors or friends of Tory MPs it's hard to break that habit. Not that Labour were innocent. This didn't start in 2010 with the Coalition Government. But at least Labour, prior to 2008, had the excuse that Russia was friendly and just another country.

There aren't, surely, enough soldiers to invade and hold Ukraine. There are enough troops to bite of a bit of territory and hold that. I don't think they want all of Ukraine. They want a change of regime

No they have enough to defeat the Ukrainian armed forces but not to hold the entire country. There's a menu of options that they might go for from rushing Kyiv to trigger a government collapse, to properly annexing the already separatists regions, to nibbling of another region in the east, to taking Mariupol in the south and securing a land bridge to Crimea. Actually fully conquering the country and annexing it by force back into Russia would be neigh on impossible. It would require the troop numbers measured in the multiple hundreds of thousands.

 

[squizzler]

Because our leaders are, on the whole, pathetic who would rather pretend the world was as they wanted it to be not as it is. Dealing with a resurgent Russia who is wiling to throw their weight around and completely ignore international law and agreements when it suits is hard and expensive to deal with.

I agree with your sentiment on the whole. How can we beat them when the UK and USA is turning itself more and like Russia. We are increasingly unequal and full of oligarchs now like Geoff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. They use their money to play at being Yuri Gurgarin. The British crime protest bill (or whatever it's called) is state oppression of the right to protest, an important part of being in a free country. The press is in increasingly concentrated in ownership and Daily Telegraph (that I am most acquainted with) has become a knock off of the Soviet Pravda paper. Truth is as hard to come by as it was in the Soviet Union.

Russia is not resurgent. Their economy is smaller than that of Spain by itself, let alone the the EU or USA. They just happen to be good at bigging themselves up on Facebook.

Unless the Russians are trying to trap themselves I'm not sure how anyone is setting a trap for them

That's the problem with propaganda. You get so good at it, surround yourself with people who think like you do, and you start believing it yourself. The result is to pick fights that you can't win. Look at the history of all dictators since (no doubt long before) Napoleon.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We all do this again next week and the week after until either they invade, Ukraine/the West make significant concessions or the Russian troops go home. I wouldn't get fixated on "oh there was no invasion, therefore Western intelligence was wrong!". The intel game is hardly ever perfect and it's a moveable feast. I have no problem believing that over the weekend the intelligence conclusion was the invasion is on for Wednesday 16 February but by the end of Monday that assessment was out of date. The enemy gets a vote and can change their plans.

Indeed. And I would have thought, as soon as it became widely publicised that US intelligence was for an invasion on Wednesday, Putin would become very strongly motivated not to do so, even if that had actually been the plan. The last thing he would want to do is demonstrate that US intelligence was correct! Indeed I almost wonder whether, assuming the intelligence reports of a Wednesday invasion were correct, a decision was made to widely publicise it precisely in order to deter Putin from invading on that day.

Probably? But the chance that it isn't a bluff is far higher than I'm personally comfortable with. I do also wonder if there's an element of trying to "normalise" the situation. Deploying 120,000 troops to the Ukrainian border stirred up a hornets nest from the West with diplomatic measures and armament shipments. If they do it again will the reaction be as strong? After all the last time the Russians deployed 120,000 troops it came to nothing...

"If they do it again will the reaction be as strong?" - Or - worse - if they just leave most of the troops there? If they stay there long enough, media and Western political interest will eventually die down. I would surmise that, since these are forces that Russia is going to maintain anyway, it's not too much trouble for Russia to just have them all permanently stationed in places that just happen to be right near the Ukrainian border and well placed for a sudden invasion (and that comes with the bonus of helping keep Lukashenko in Belarus on his toes). On the other hand, it would be economically crippling for the much smaller Ukraine to have to stay in its current state of invasion-readiness long-term, which therefore achieves another possible Putin-objective.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree with your sentiment on the whole. How can we beat them when the UK and USA is turning itself more and like Russia. We are increasingly unequal and full of oligarchs now like Geoff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. They use their money to play at being Yuri Gurgarin. The British crime protest bill (or whatever it's called) is state oppression of the right to protest, an important part of being in a free country. The press is in increasingly concentrated in ownership and Daily Telegraph (that I am most acquainted with) has become a knock off of the Soviet Pravda paper. Truth is as hard to come by as it was in the Soviet Union.

I'm not sure that truth has become that hard to come by but it certainly has been drowned out in a torrent of alternative facts. But otherwise I'd struggle to disagree with you more broadly!

Russia is not resurgent. Their economy is smaller than that of Spain by itself, let alone the the EU or USA. They just happen to be good at bigging themselves up on Facebook.

Yes using "resurgent" unqualified was perhaps a mistake on my part as you're quite right that under the surface things are not looking great. I always tend to use the Russian Navy as a good example of this issue. The Russian Navy on paper is big and scary but when you drill down you find that all their major surface warships were either commissioned by the Soviet Navy or started construction during Soviet times and were completed shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meaning that nearly everything is between 30 and 40 years old with nothing under construction to replace them (but lots of big plans which have been talked about for a decade or so now!). They do have lots of modern corvettes and patrol ships and they've got some modern frigates but those are the sorts of ships that you use to control something like the Baltic or Black Sea (which is funnily enough where most of them are based!). Their nuclear powered submarines are in a similar but slightly better state in that there is new construction underway with new submarines commissioned but the bulk of their nuclear powered fleet is of Soviet vintage.

You can drill into lots of different aspects and find a similar story be it in the economy or infrastructure or the armed forces. It all looks shiny on the surface but underneath a lot of Russian power is built on the aging and crumbling remains of their Soviet inheritance. That's quite apart from worrying demographic trends like declining birth rates, flatling or declining life expectancy, etc etc.

So I should have been a bit more careful with resurgent. Right now Russia appears stronger (and does have significant strength) than it has for a long time but the trends are not good and a lot of that strength is quite hollow. This might be something of a last "hurrah" and I wonder if that also plays on Putin's mind.

That's the problem with propaganda. You get so good at it, surround yourself with people who think like you do, and you start believing it yourself. The result is to pick fights that you can't win. Look at the history of all dictators since (no doubt long before) Napoleon.

Indeed though I would have thought Putin was a canny enough operator to avoid believing his own hubris!

If they do so again? Or - worse - if they just leave most of them there. If they stay there long enough, media and Western political interest will eventually die down. I would surmise that, since these are forces that Russia is going to maintain anyway, it's not too much trouble for Russia to just have them all permanently stationed in places that just happen to be right near the Ukrainian border and well placed for a sudden invasion (and that comes with the bonus of helping keep Lukashenko in Belarus on his toes). On the other hand, it would be economically crippling for the much smaller Ukraine to have to stay in its current state of invasion-readiness long-term, which therefore achieves another possible Putin-objective.

Yep that's not a bad shout either if they're playing a longer game (either deliberately or as as a response to what's happened over the last month).

 

[adc82140]

Russia will always fall back on the fact that under international law they can position their troops in whatever numbers they like and whatever posture on what is their territory. They plan to use this as a sword of Damocles hanging over Ukraine to destabilise the government.