2020: Russian Military Exercises Near Ukraine. 100 to 120 thousand troops. No WW3, no threat of nukes. https://empr.media/news/conflict-zone/russian-military-exerc...
Edit: I looked up some of the others
2016 https://www.vox.com/2016/9/1/12729426/russia-troops-ukraine-...
2017 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/09/13/whats-putin-up...
2019 https://radiolemberg.com/en/ua-articles/ua-allarticles/almos...
So, this action from Russia is completely normal, and does not usually trigger nuclear war.
If you do a dumb-as-a-post scale up of that to Ukraine, purely with troops / area, you'd expect a lot more than 500,000 troops; and unlike Crimea, such an invasion will be met with resistance.
https://jamestown.org/program/macron-meets-with-putin-as-rus...
...but it is not at all normal for the US to evacuate the embassy in Ukraine.
Then you know nothing about the history of the US media.
He says there's no reason for alarm or for making plans of fleeing the country.
[0] https://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2022/02/13/embaixador-bra...
Somehow, I don't think Brazil has exactly top of the line technical or human intelligence on either side of the conflict, nor are they particularly likely to have a good feed from anyone who does, so even if we trust them, aside from telling us that an invasion hasn't started yet, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to take from that.
The ambassador lives in Ukraine and is definitely much more aware of the real situation than any one of us getting fed Fox News, CNN, the BBC or The Guardian from our couches.
Brazilian intelligence/spy services are perhaps not at the same level as the US's or Russia's but they're far from useless.
When? Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
> It's the largest military in Latin America.
And if we were discussing their ability to take Uruguay in a fight, that might be relevant.
> It's in good diplomatic terms with pretty much all countries in the globe.
Sure, few countries have any significant disputes with Brazil because Brazil isn't exactly deeply involved beyond its immediate region. That's great in a lot of ways for Brazil, but it's not exactly an endorsement of them being likely to be especially well informed of the prospects of war in Ukraine.
> The ambassador lives in Ukraine
Which would make him a very good source on whether there is active fighting in his immediate vicinity, but beyond that...?
> and is definitely much more aware of the real situation than any one of us getting fed Fox News, CNN, the BBC or The Guardian from our couches.
He’s probably reading the same communiques from the governments more directly involved and much of the same media coverage based on those communiques as everyone not in one of the involved countries is seeing.
> Brazilian intelligence/spy services are perhaps not at the same level as the US's or Russia's but they're far from useless.
Probably not, but also probably aren't really historically intensely focussed on the security situation in Eastern Europe.
> Sources I can find have it topping out at 6th in 1995, which (aside from not being 5th) is quite a while ago.
You're right, it was 6th, not 5th, but it was that as of 2012 [0], which is less than a decade ago. I believe it kept the position for another year or 2 but I can't find the data to back that.
Everything else in your post is downplaying how much information on geopolitics a Brazilian ambassador might have relative to yourself, and clearly from your point of view you have the upper hand. I can't beat that.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/06/brazil-econ...
As bad as that possibility is, it's not the worst. The worst would be that the US Government is using its media assets to push this narrative. Judging by the past history of Jake Sullivan in regards to Ukraine/Russia [1], this seems more likely.
[1] - https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/...
False characterization of OP's premise, which was: "Putin made demands of NATO publicly and NATO rejected them completely just as publicly"
Everyone knows North Korea doing anything to South Korea would be suicide. Russia knows there's far more to lose as well. Yet they could solidify their existing gains by keeping an even worse option on the table.
It's modern authoritarian bully politics 101, especially in an era where landwars are rare, unless they are asymmetric.
NATO basically has to react in this game (the media's unquestioning obedience is a different question).
Russia overtly wants a sphere of influence that includes (among other neighbors) Ukraine, and Ukraine isn’t voluntary giving in to it's desire for that, so Russia keeps waging war and taking bits of Ukraine. Ultimately, that obviously ends with Russia taking the whole country to achieve that goal, unless it gives it up.
Russia would rather have surrender without further invasion (it's too late for “without war”), but it's also clearly willing to fight an escalating war to achieve it's goals.