It was not obvious recently to German navy chief, it is not obvious to Ukrainian government and to plenty of other experts. All the evidence about "imminent attack" is fed to media by US government without sufficient proofs. Whatever are your sources, try to find more information.
Ukrainian government is not denying Russia buildup on their borders. They just say that Russia does not have enough troops for a full scale invasion. So, Russia is preparing, but is not yet ready for a full-scale invasion.
But USA is indeed going too far in rhetoric if Ukraine is toning them down.
Personally, I think there is 55% chance Russia is bluffing and intimidates Ukraine to dissuade them from thinking about taking back Donbas and Crimea. 45% chance that by end of March there will be land corridor from Russia to Crimea.
Indeed he did not. However he said that such invasion to annex more of Ukrainian territory does not make sense. In order to run a very expensive and widely unpopular military operation you do need a good motive, and this means that whatever is the purpose of the military buildup, invasion is not the goal.
Russian military did not invade undisputed territories since War in Afghanistan and they now prefer hybrid wars or limited peacekeeping operations, rather than full scale invasions. They may provide some support to Donbas, but there is actually no point even investing in that. Minsk agreements are quite favorable to Russia, so it brings more value to persuade Germany and France that Ukraine needs more pressure to implement them. No, the real target of this buildup is NATO, playing Biden into signing new security treaties.
We will see.
Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO due to disputed territories anyway.
As a Pole, after full blown invasion on Ukraine, I would support increase in military spending beyond current goal of 2.5%.
I also think that Sweden and Finland would join NATO relatively soon after invasion. After 2014 annexation of Crimea support for NATO grew there some 20-30%. Sweden is rattled enough to deploy symbolic military presence to Gotland. Joining NATO is part of political discussion in Finland, but they are on the edge.
Russia would only lose on war with Ukraine.
As for the expansion of NATO, any change in the military configuration of it is an unnecessary and significant escalation. Russia is not threatening neither Finland, nor Sweden, not even close, but we will get at least an arms race in Baltic region if they join. Russian military strategy is that of active defense, they build up the power to protect their own territory. They do not have capabilities to attack and occupy Poland or Finland for a long time, mainly for logistical reasons (their army will run out of fuel quickly and won’t be able to resupply fast enough). The worst part of the expansion is not that there’s a hypothetical risk of a conflict but that it strengthens Putin. He has built his rule on the idea of Fortress Russia surrounded by enemies. Any hostile moves by the West help him to build this case and to prove that pro-Western opposition is wrong. But if instead we could bind Russia in the series of multilateral deals with its neighbors, including defense cooperation, we could on one side defeat the Russian hawks and on the other side create too big pie to lose for Russian elites. America has Monroe doctrine: we should try to remove the need for Russia to have one. Situation in Ukraine made this really hard to achieve, but not impossible.
The thing though is it does make Putin look weak if he has to move 100k troops to threaten Biden to the negotiation table.
PS: "Proof" is both singular and plural. "Proofs" isn't a word.
I don't feel like one can participate in this discussion in good faith because any "evidence" of "imminent attack" can be brushed off... 100k troops and a ton of military gear on the border? Just chilling out and sightseeing, my friend, nothing to see here!
However, I do contest the claim that all "evidence" is fed by the US government. There are other sources if you care to dig in.
How about Ministry of Defence of Ukraine? They've been predicting action for January-February since months ago, and there's certainly evidence from Ukraine that Russia is up to something.
> On 21 November, the head of the HUR MOU, Kyrylo Budanov, reported that Russia had concentrated more than 92,000 troops and deployed several Iskander short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) systems near the Russo-Ukrainian border. Budanov accused Russia of conspiring protests against vaccination against COVID-19 in Kyiv and other protest rallies in Ukraine to destabilize the country in preparations for a large-scale military invasion. According to Budanov, active Russian military actions should be expected between late-January and early-February 2022.
> On 3 December, the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Oleksii Reznikov, spoke of the possibility of a "large-scale escalation" by Russia during the end of January 2022, during a session at the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's national parliament).
> Russia began a slow evacuation of its embassy staff at Kyiv beginning from January 2022. The motives of the evacuation remain unknown and were subjected to multiple speculations. By mid-January, an intelligence assessment produced by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence estimated that Russia were in its final stages of completing a military buildup at the Russo-Ukrainian border, amassing 127,000 troops at the region.
I'm not going to post the links because anyone who is not dishonest and not intellectually lazy can find them in two minutes of searching.
Umm, this is exactly what I meant when I said it's impossible to discuss this in good faith. Any evidence can be immediately brushed off. "Ha, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine failed to predict the exact date when something would happen, therefore everything they said is false!" Completely disregarding everything that has been happening near Ukrainian border.
Sorry, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.