6 ms·

I suspect the USA and NATO know a lot more about what is going on than they would ever announce publicly. Although it’s hard to know for sure, it seems like Rus

by Gatsky 5y ago

I suspect the USA and NATO know a lot more about what is going on than they would ever announce publicly. Although it’s hard to know for sure, it seems like Russia has revealed significant weakness in its military and intelligence services with this war.

Sakos 5y ago
I don't see why they wouldn't know what happened. They're never going to tell us in detail though, so we're stuck trying to figure it out for ourselves.
gsatic 5y ago
The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. The whole story is about men, pretending they have control over things that they have no control over. So they focus on all sorts of small ass bullshit.
- oblio 5y ago
  > The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. How could they have controlled the outcome? Especially that of a dictator dead set to recreate Imperial Russia? NATO couldn't get involved directly in any way. Indirect measures such as sanctions would never have been approved preemptively, they had to wait for the attack first, in order to have public opinion accept sanctions.
  - trasz 5y ago
    >How could they have controlled the outcome? By providing Ukraine with a shitload of weaponry before Russia invaded. I think the West made the same assumption Putin did: that Russia will squash Ukraine in a few days, and all the western weapons would then be studied and duplicated.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Remember Trump? And Germany getting half its gas from Russia?
    - petre 5y ago
      They'd be escalating if they did that before Russia attacked. However now NATO has an excuse to arm Ukraine under Chapter VII of the UN charter.
- bawolff 5y ago
  Russia isn't exactly winning here, and russia has totally destroyed most of its soft power and degraded the impression of having a scary military in the process. Like if you approach from a purely machevelian perspective: * Nato's major enemy no longer has as many friends as it used to * NATO now can witness russia's capabilities *NATO members are now reminded why NATO is useful. Countries who previously didn't want in, suddenly do. I don't know what NATO did/didn't do, but the outcome so far seems like the ideal one NATO would want geopolitically, so it doesn't seem like they are inept to me.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >degraded the impression of having a scary military They're still waving the 'we have nukes' card, so states are still scared though.
    - zaarn 5y ago
      You can't use that card for everything. There are well established geopolitical red lines in the sand where the nukes would be launched, have been for a long while, even during the cold war. Some poking and prodding is generally accepted, and while it will lead to escalations, it'll not lead to war. Only differing leverages politically. If on the other hand, you start waving your red nuke card for every issue you want your opinion to be accepted, then it becomes worthless. Just like in the boy who cried wolf. Where is the line in the sand for the baltic and scandinavian states wanting to join NATO? "If you join NATO, we nuke you" "If you stop trading with us, we nuke you" "If you don't stop trading with the US, we nuke you" "If you don't join the Russian Empire, we nuke you" Sure, russia can bring all those, but I doubt anything but the first one is even considerable for a state. And even then the more you wave the card the more attractive the first option of joining NATO becomes, because once you're in, Russia can't nuke you.
      - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
        > "If you join NATO, we nuke you" I don't think this is specifically true, but being in conflict does prevents you from joining NATO.
medo-bear 5y ago
historically russian military has always been "weak" in some sense. in almost every war they ever fought they suffered heavy losses. this is no military secret. main examples are napoleon wwi civil war poland wwii afghanistan chechnia and now ukraine (if we are to believe western and ukranian reports). from immediate memmory id say that only georgian army was swiftly defeated. however people seem to forget that historically russians tend to fight on despite heavy losses. exceptions being when war is led by unpopular leaders: nicholas ii gorbachov yeltsin
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >people seem to forget that historically russians tend to fight on despite heavy losses. Yeah, but only when they were defending their motherland from evil external invaders they could see and go face to face with, while now Russian territory is currently not under attack, so Russian troops have very low morale, knowing their being sent to fight Ukraine, a friendly country they have no beef with, and die there due to outdated equipment, poor leadership, bad quality MREs or none at all, and under the constat threat that somewhere out of sight lies either a Bayraktar drone or a guy with an NLAW ready to blow your shit up, all this so one maniac can have his old-age power trip. Not exactly the combination of factors to motivate you to fight, when you could just as easily have been chilling at home in safety, like you did in the past 30 years, if it weren't for your great leader's blunder.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    you are right however one could argue that historically ukraine is more russian then chechnia. also i think that plenty of russians see this war as defending against nato advancements. in eastern europe there is a popular social media joke going on that america and england will support ukraine to the very last ukranian
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      > also i think that plenty of russians see this war as defending against nato advancements Those Russians viewing the war on state TV from the comfort of their homes can see it like that, but the starving conscripts driving through Ukraine in an iron coffin who have to actually walk the walk, will beg to differ, that the current situation is not worth dying for.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Not a bad assumption. I'd be shocked if they weren't all over this and I don't think NATO involvement is such a huge secret. We've been sending weapons, training people, donating billions, and probably sharing intelligence as well. And lately politicians are falling over each other for a photo opportunity with Zelensky in Kyiv. There probably is a fair bit of clandestine operations going on inside the Ukraine as well. I would expect no less. Business as usual in an active war zone and the stakes are pretty high. From a NATO point of view, the Russians self destructing their army in this misguided war is a huge unexpected opportunity. I don't think anybody really expected that they'd go there but now that they have, it would be a shame to not make the most of it. The Russians seem to have gotten stuck committing major troops, ships, planes, tanks etc. and it seems that they are losing quite a bit of that and also that it isn't actually enough. Not a good picture; no matter how you spin it.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  That's true, but NATO is just one aspect of its member states. And while it's correct to assume that it is in the best interest of NATO for this war to last long and deplete Russia's resources, it is just one of many factors to consider. Most importantly, each day means more deaths of innocent people, so this is something you'd want to avoid under normal circumstances. In any case, it's not like anybody has much choice. Ukrainians have to fight to defend their country, the West has to support them, and Russia can't just back down. I just wish Zelenski let those males who want to leave go. It's inhuman to keep them there.
- bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
  It would be a very sad state of affairs if NATO basically used the Ukrainians to soak up as much damage as the Russians can inflict in order to weaken it, whilst giving only as little support as necessary, and by dragging the war on. However it's clear that NATO is also mindful of the fact that Ukraine is currently well led by a capable democratic leader, but that might not be the case in a year or 2, so don't give them too many toys. Saying that, as an armchair general I would like to see Ukraine driving a wedge to the west of Mariupol down to the sea, and a wedge just south of Kherson to surround the forces there. Secondly they could cross over into Russia via Bolgorod and attack the eastern forces from behind, whilst taking out as much military (including propaganda channels) and rail infra on the way. The land bridge to Crimea should be reduced to rubble and the port at Sevastopol disabled. Don't know that they have the man power for that, but that should give the old dictator something to worry about.
Arrath 5y ago
US/NATO surveillance aircraft have been airborne practically 24/7 in Poland since this all kicked off, gathering untold quantities of signal intelligence. There is no telling what they know and aren't saying.
- petre 5y ago
  Also over Romania. And there is almost always a Global Hawk flying over the Black Sea as well. Visible on Flightradar24, named FORCE#.

by Gatsky 5y ago

Sakos 5y ago

I don't see why they wouldn't know what happened. They're never going to tell us in detail though, so we're stuck trying to figure it out for ourselves.

gsatic 5y ago

The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. The whole story is about men, pretending they have control over things that they have no control over. So they focus on all sorts of small ass bullshit.

oblio 5y ago
> The US and NATO knew about troop build up 5 months back. They are as inept as the Russians in controlling/producing outcomes. How could they have controlled the outcome? Especially that of a dictator dead set to recreate Imperial Russia? NATO couldn't get involved directly in any way. Indirect measures such as sanctions would never have been approved preemptively, they had to wait for the attack first, in order to have public opinion accept sanctions.
- trasz 5y ago
  >How could they have controlled the outcome? By providing Ukraine with a shitload of weaponry before Russia invaded. I think the West made the same assumption Putin did: that Russia will squash Ukraine in a few days, and all the western weapons would then be studied and duplicated.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Remember Trump? And Germany getting half its gas from Russia?
  - petre 5y ago
    They'd be escalating if they did that before Russia attacked. However now NATO has an excuse to arm Ukraine under Chapter VII of the UN charter.
bawolff 5y ago
Russia isn't exactly winning here, and russia has totally destroyed most of its soft power and degraded the impression of having a scary military in the process. Like if you approach from a purely machevelian perspective: * Nato's major enemy no longer has as many friends as it used to * NATO now can witness russia's capabilities *NATO members are now reminded why NATO is useful. Countries who previously didn't want in, suddenly do. I don't know what NATO did/didn't do, but the outcome so far seems like the ideal one NATO would want geopolitically, so it doesn't seem like they are inept to me.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >degraded the impression of having a scary military They're still waving the 'we have nukes' card, so states are still scared though.
  - zaarn 5y ago
    You can't use that card for everything. There are well established geopolitical red lines in the sand where the nukes would be launched, have been for a long while, even during the cold war. Some poking and prodding is generally accepted, and while it will lead to escalations, it'll not lead to war. Only differing leverages politically. If on the other hand, you start waving your red nuke card for every issue you want your opinion to be accepted, then it becomes worthless. Just like in the boy who cried wolf. Where is the line in the sand for the baltic and scandinavian states wanting to join NATO? "If you join NATO, we nuke you" "If you stop trading with us, we nuke you" "If you don't stop trading with the US, we nuke you" "If you don't join the Russian Empire, we nuke you" Sure, russia can bring all those, but I doubt anything but the first one is even considerable for a state. And even then the more you wave the card the more attractive the first option of joining NATO becomes, because once you're in, Russia can't nuke you.
    - ElectricalUnion 5y ago
      > "If you join NATO, we nuke you" I don't think this is specifically true, but being in conflict does prevents you from joining NATO.

medo-bear 5y ago

historically russian military has always been "weak" in some sense. in almost every war they ever fought they suffered heavy losses. this is no military secret. main examples are napoleon wwi civil war poland wwii afghanistan chechnia and now ukraine (if we are to believe western and ukranian reports). from immediate memmory id say that only georgian army was swiftly defeated. however people seem to forget that historically russians tend to fight on despite heavy losses. exceptions being when war is led by unpopular leaders: nicholas ii gorbachov yeltsin

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>people seem to forget that historically russians tend to fight on despite heavy losses. Yeah, but only when they were defending their motherland from evil external invaders they could see and go face to face with, while now Russian territory is currently not under attack, so Russian troops have very low morale, knowing their being sent to fight Ukraine, a friendly country they have no beef with, and die there due to outdated equipment, poor leadership, bad quality MREs or none at all, and under the constat threat that somewhere out of sight lies either a Bayraktar drone or a guy with an NLAW ready to blow your shit up, all this so one maniac can have his old-age power trip. Not exactly the combination of factors to motivate you to fight, when you could just as easily have been chilling at home in safety, like you did in the past 30 years, if it weren't for your great leader's blunder.
- medo-bear 5y ago
  you are right however one could argue that historically ukraine is more russian then chechnia. also i think that plenty of russians see this war as defending against nato advancements. in eastern europe there is a popular social media joke going on that america and england will support ukraine to the very last ukranian
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    > also i think that plenty of russians see this war as defending against nato advancements Those Russians viewing the war on state TV from the comfort of their homes can see it like that, but the starving conscripts driving through Ukraine in an iron coffin who have to actually walk the walk, will beg to differ, that the current situation is not worth dying for.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Not a bad assumption. I'd be shocked if they weren't all over this and I don't think NATO involvement is such a huge secret. We've been sending weapons, training people, donating billions, and probably sharing intelligence as well. And lately politicians are falling over each other for a photo opportunity with Zelensky in Kyiv. There probably is a fair bit of clandestine operations going on inside the Ukraine as well. I would expect no less. Business as usual in an active war zone and the stakes are pretty high. From a NATO point of view, the Russians self destructing their army in this misguided war is a huge unexpected opportunity. I don't think anybody really expected that they'd go there but now that they have, it would be a shame to not make the most of it. The Russians seem to have gotten stuck committing major troops, ships, planes, tanks etc. and it seems that they are losing quite a bit of that and also that it isn't actually enough. Not a good picture; no matter how you spin it.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
That's true, but NATO is just one aspect of its member states. And while it's correct to assume that it is in the best interest of NATO for this war to last long and deplete Russia's resources, it is just one of many factors to consider. Most importantly, each day means more deaths of innocent people, so this is something you'd want to avoid under normal circumstances. In any case, it's not like anybody has much choice. Ukrainians have to fight to defend their country, the West has to support them, and Russia can't just back down. I just wish Zelenski let those males who want to leave go. It's inhuman to keep them there.
bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
It would be a very sad state of affairs if NATO basically used the Ukrainians to soak up as much damage as the Russians can inflict in order to weaken it, whilst giving only as little support as necessary, and by dragging the war on. However it's clear that NATO is also mindful of the fact that Ukraine is currently well led by a capable democratic leader, but that might not be the case in a year or 2, so don't give them too many toys. Saying that, as an armchair general I would like to see Ukraine driving a wedge to the west of Mariupol down to the sea, and a wedge just south of Kherson to surround the forces there. Secondly they could cross over into Russia via Bolgorod and attack the eastern forces from behind, whilst taking out as much military (including propaganda channels) and rail infra on the way. The land bridge to Crimea should be reduced to rubble and the port at Sevastopol disabled. Don't know that they have the man power for that, but that should give the old dictator something to worry about.

Arrath 5y ago

US/NATO surveillance aircraft have been airborne practically 24/7 in Poland since this all kicked off, gathering untold quantities of signal intelligence. There is no telling what they know and aren't saying.

petre 5y ago
Also over Romania. And there is almost always a Global Hawk flying over the Black Sea as well. Visible on Flightradar24, named FORCE#.