Posted on 05/07/2022 8:28:37 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The Biden administration’s efforts to provide intelligence to Ukrainian forces has garnered attention this week as the war between Russia and the former Soviet state drags on through its third month.
A report from The New York Times stated that intelligence provided to Ukraine by the United States helped to target and kill Russian generals.
The Washington Post, among other outlets, reported that the U.S. provided intelligence to help sink a Russian flagship vessel in the Black Sea.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
2. Zelensky wants more money
3. Zelensky wants more money.
4. Zelensky wants more money.
5. Zelensky wants more money.
The Russians aren’t stupid, I’m sure they were already aware we were giving Ukraine the intelligence. Leaking this info to the press was meant to provoke Putin into reacting, so NATO would have an excuse to jump in. The neocons are just itching for WW3 and will do everything necessary to bring it about.
During the Korean War and the Vietnam War Russia supplied planes, Sam missiles that killed our guys, guns, artillery, and training and some of those pilots were Russian.
We should do the same up to the point of not nuclear warfare as there are no winners for either side.
Russian trawlers sat off Guam during the Vietnam war and gave the NVA and the VC accurate information when and by tracking the B52s path where the bombs were likely to fall. When the B52s began to strike North Vietnam, that information resulted in lost aircraft and dead Americans.
Yeah but Vietnam wasn’t on either one’s border like Ukraine is. One report said if the US put nukes in Ukraine, they could decimate Moscow in a matter of a few minutes. The Russians know this, thus why to them it is considered an existential issue. And the reason why I believe they will resort to at least tactical nukes should NATO enter on the side of Ukraine come knocking on their door.
See my post above ^^^
That was the Soviet Union not Russia. The cold war is over.
Yet, we could put nukes in Latvia and they would be there in roughly the same amount of time.
Latvia has been in NATO since 2004.
So either the 'reports' you've seen are garbage, or you are just posting nonsense.
I’m just repeating what a professional foreign policy expert’s assessment of the situation was in a video interview I saw. I’m sure he knows more about the situation than either of us do.
Yes.
But there ain’t shit the Russias can do about it right now.
The payback will come later. We also have interests all over the world where you have groups that are willing to kill us. In the Philippines you have Abu Sayyaf, in Iraq there are about 34 different militias and almost none of them like us. In Afghanistan there are folks that don’t like us and contrary to popular belief, we still have some folks there. Right now the Russians are a bit preoccupied, but give it some time.
That said, the combination of advanced weaponry with training and feeding them Intel surely did pay off (in so far of making them Russians pay a high price). However, the real credit goes to the Ukrainians. We also trained and equipped Afghans, Iraqis... While some of the groups among the Ukrainians are a bit sketchy (Azov and yes, a neo Nazi ideology), that does not take away from a serious will to fight and folks that can think.
There is no way in hell that the Ukrainians could know where all the Russian leadership is at all the time... Being able to target them like that is US Intel (that’s a near given). I read somewhere (who knows how accurate that is?) that something like 30+ colonels and generals have been killed since the begining. Not sure if that includes LTCs? That has not only have to be intimidating and a moral buster, but also affect the planning and decision making at this point. The leadership is getting whacked constantly or has to operate under threat of being whacked. The Russians who have an army that uses conscription and doesn’t really have an equivalent to our NCO corps is probably much more impacted by the constant decapitation of leadership.
All that said, what I think is a first for this war is that it’s the first semi drone/robotic fought war. The use of drones and robots in this war is off the charts (even the Russians are using a lot of them). We are really getting to a point where robots and drones are completely changing how war is fought. The machine gun ended the frontal assault. The trench was the solution. The tank ended the trench. Massive obstacle belts and bunker complexes we’re the answer. Maneuver warfare ended the obstacle belts and massive fortifications... Today we have drones and robots. It’s a game changer at this point, IMHO.
***Like the Gatling gun was to the infantry or cav charge, and even though that technology was from the US civil war, the opening of WWI still included frontal assaults because the doctrine had not kept pace with technology. We are seeing the same thing unfold in Ukraine today regards drones and robots.***
That one made me laugh. The Biden brigades flood their propaganda here at night (plus day) and I expected just another “rah rah” Ukey thread. Well done.
Proxy wars far from the motherland are one thing.
Proxy wars close to the motherland are another.
Think Cuban missile crisis.
Right: Ukraine's location adjacent to Russia gives Russia the right to invade the country, burn and pillage, as well as dictate terms to Kiyv. At the same time, Ukraine is not allowed to obtain any assistance from third parties.
We all understand where you stand on this issue now.
Regards,
Yeah, after all this is over, and Russia emerges victorious, with its officer corps completely intact, and its tank brigades glistening in the sunlight, plenty of Fourth-World bandits will be eager to "do business" with them!
Regards,
Yes the next war will be drones and robotics, assuming there is a next war and this one doesn’t result in a total nuclear exchange.
Ten percent for “The Big Guy”!
Does the US have any right to take action against Mexico for allowing millions of its own people, and people from other nations, to pass through Mexico to invade the United States? Does the US have any right to invade Mexico to wipe out the drug cartels and human traffickers using Mexico as a base to conduct criminal activity in the U.S. including killing American citizens?
Does the U.S. have the right to deploy its troops at its will globally and invade other countries that pose no threat to it he homeland? Since WWII the U.S. has deployed its military in combat in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Bosnia, Serbia, Syria, Yemen. The US also trained and funded the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in the 1960’s. US military forces have been deployed in a number of African nations, in support and “advisory” roles since WWII. The US went to war with Mexico in the 1800’s, taking millions of acres of land in what is today the southwestern United States. Throughout the 1800’s the United States Army conducted military operations against the indigenous Native American nations, violating treaties with the express purpose of removing those people from their land and in some cases exterminating them. During the early 1900’s the US used its armed forces frequently in Central America to force governments there to bend to the will of American business interests.
The United States has behaved as an imperialist nation through much of its history, waging war directly, and through proxies, to bend other nations and peoples to its will. Today we arm and financially support Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia. Perhaps doing so, and risking nuclear reprisal, is in our national interest. Perhaps not. I have yet to hear a valid argument why we are bearing the overwhelming share of the financial cost of this proxy war which is a European issue. The EU countries have the resources to fund this war in their backyard. Why is this our crusade?
It is difficult to justify the depletion of the US military weapons stockpile to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion when the United States government allows millions of people to invade the U.S. across the southern border, and permanently resettle in the US homeland, every year. Why are the Ukrainian people deserving of US military support when the farmers and ranchers in the border states are not? Why support Ukraine when American citizens are victims of human traffickers, drug cartels, and other criminals crossing the border freely to prey on the American people? Why spend billions engaging in a European proxy war with Russia when we have a Fentanyl crisis in this nation, killing citizens and destroying families and communities, which is being orchestrated by foreign actors?
The United States has no moral authority conducting a proxy war against Russia in Europe. The primary purpose of the central government is to protect its citizens. A government that willfully chooses not to protect its own citizens, while actively conducting wars across the planet, has no moral authority at all.
“War is a matter not so much of arms as of money.” - Thucydides
Ancient wisdom. If you were in charge of a nation at war what would you be asking for? Be honest.
1. Zelensky wants more money.
———
….and Senile Joe will keep giving billions of taxpayers money to the evil little beggar who most likely has damaging proof about Senile Joe, his son Hunter and US State Department’s corruption.
Since 2012, the Ukrainian banking system and government has been listed as the world’s MOST corrupted in the world. There is good reason the EU has denied the Ukies admission to both the EU and NATO since 1991.
Don’t get sucked in.
Money well spent imho.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.