U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
Ukrainian officials said they have killed approximately 12 generals on the front lines, a number that has astonished military analysts.

The targeting help is part of a classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine. That intelligence also includes anticipated Russian troop movements gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan for the fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, the officials said. Officials declined to specify how many generals had been killed as a result of U.S. assistance.

The United States has focused on providing the location and other details about the Russian military’s mobile headquarters, which relocate frequently. Ukrainian officials have combined that geographic information with their own intelligence — including intercepted communications that alert the Ukrainian military to the presence of senior Russian officers — to conduct artillery strikes and other attacks that have killed Russian officers.

The intelligence sharing is part of a stepped-up flow in U.S. assistance that includes heavier weapons and tens of billions in aid, demonstrating how quickly the early American restraints on support for Ukraine have shifted as the war enters a new stage that could play out over months.

U.S. intelligence support to the Ukrainians has had a decisive effect on the battlefield, confirming targets identified by the Ukrainian military and pointing it to new targets. The flow of actionable intelligence on the movement of Russian troops that America has given Ukraine has few precedents.
 
we are at war with Russia's military and command officers.
=
we are in a hot war against Russia
 
Although the administration remains wary of inflaming Mr. Putin to the point that he further escalates his attacks
Click to expand...
I cant think of any reason for Russia not to strike back -it's amazing they haven't. Maybe China is holding them back - but it's a hot war we are waging and events have their own way of happening without planning
 
Good job, Biden.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a blatant violation of international law that the world community has a right and an obligation to directly oppose.
 
There is nothing funnier than a guy with a masters degree getting lectured by a phone salesman for MyPillow.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
 
Cypress said:
Good job, Biden.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a blatant violation of international law that the world community has a right and an obligation to directly oppose.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything this idiot posts, but I'm sure he's arguing that we should not participate in assassinations. When the victim is a terrorist, I'm just fine with it.
 
Concart said:
There is nothing funnier than a guy with a masters degree getting lectured by a phone salesman for MyPillow.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
Click to expand...
master degree in what? warmongering?
There isnt a war you havent supported going back to Iraq and Libya -but those werent against a nuclear state
 
Cypress said:
Good job, Biden.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a blatant violation of international law that the world community has a right and an obligation to directly oppose.
Click to expand...
such nice flowery language designed to obscure the fact we are warring against Russia - targeting their generals and gawd knows what support like long range artillery that can fire into Russia

yud be the first to scream if Russia used a tactical nuke - but that's where this is heading
 
anatta said:
I cant think of any reason for Russia not to strike back -it's amazing they haven't.
Click to expand...
Strike back? What do you mean? They are - in Ukraine.
Putin does not want a direct confrontation with NATO. He’s got more than enough already.
 
Last edited:
anonymoose said:
Strike back? What do you mean? They are - in Ukraine.
Putin does not want a direct confrontation with NATO. He’s got more than enough already.
Click to expand...
strike back with tactical nukes IN UKRAINE ; not strategic nukes against NATO

do you get the fact we are at war with Russia? that means Russias "first strike if threatened" is in play
 
a-jpg.987891
 
anatta said:
such nice flowery language designed to obscure the fact we are warring against Russia - targeting their generals and gawd knows what support like long range artillery that can fire into Russia

yud be the first to scream if Russia used a tactical nuke - but that's where this is heading
Click to expand...

I am aware Republicans are intimidated by and frightened of Putin's Russia.
 
anatta said:
strike back with tactical nukes IN UKRAINE ; not strategic nukes against NATO
Click to expand...
Your link has a link to this article:
Russia’s War Has Been Brutal, but Putin Has Shown Some Restraint. Why?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

I'm surprised if you didn't read it already.

Reading between the lines in the OP and that ^ here's my assessment.
The Soviet Union and China were in a proxy war with the U.S. in Vietnam. This established an unwritten rule that the invading country does not directly attack the country supplying arms. If we had nuked Hanoi or Haiphong or both Or if we had used tactical nukes there you think that would have won the war for the U.S? Fuck no, the Vietnamese would have hunkered down that much harder as well as having the entire international community against us (even more than they already were).
If Russia somehow outright wins this war they're already stuck with a huge rebuilding job. The more they destroy cities the bigger that job becomes.
And they've already made enemies for generations against a people they once considered brothers.
I just can't see what victory looks like to them.
We don't know how this will play out but we can learn from history.



anatta said:
do you get the fact we are at war with Russia? that means Russias "first strike if threatened" is in play
Click to expand...
There are people high up in govt. much smarter and with much more information than you and me (excluding Brandon). Putin has already miscalculated. We don't know how this will play out but we can learn from history. It does not bode well for a Russian victory in the long run. They'll be OK, just a huge waste of resources only to satisfy their ego.
In summary, as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and as long as the West is willing to supply arms, this will continue and the longer it does, the worse it looks for Russia.
I'm not saying we didn't make mistakes, especially with supporting the coup that installed Zelenskyy, but it's too late now to turn back.
 
anonymoose said:
Great article here:

Why Washington Should Take Russian Nuclear Threats Seriously
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/05/why-washington-should-take-russian-nuclear-threats-seriously/
Click to expand...
it makes a lot of good points: thanks for the link. i booked marked for myself
1. keeping American personnel out of the fight does not eliminate all incentives to escalate, and it might make nuclear use appear less risky if those other incentives began to loom large in Moscow’s calculations.
I’m also worried because Putin has a track record of issuing warnings and then following through on them

2. As Putin’s many speeches on this subject have made clear, he and his associates saw Ukraine’s drift into de facto alignment with the United States and NATO as an existential threat—to include the threat of a color revolution in Russia itself—and they almost certainly believed that the time to stop this process was running out.

3.War aims such as these are emotionally appealing, because many would like to punish Putin for the suffering he’s inflicted on Ukraine. Unfortunately, trying to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia creates precisely the circumstances that would encourage a rational leader to contemplate other options, such as a demonstration strike with a small nuclear weapon. The purpose of such an action would be what the late theorist Thomas Schelling called a “competition in risk-taking”: one side takes an obviously dangerous action in order to demonstrate how much it cares about the issue at hand, and to persuade its opponent(s) to back off.
The failure to take Kyiv has shifted Russian war aims to the east (and probably reduced Moscow’s overall ambitions), but Ukraine’s future geopolitical alignment was the principal casus belli, and that issue has not gone away as far as Moscow is concerned.
 
Being right a high percentage of the time is the ultimate proof of education.

I am +1 here.

I was right.

AGAIN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top