Regardles if they keep quiet or not, it’s then just an open secret.. everyone knows it, everyone knew it before some came out and said it.. it’s very obvious, and the Russians surely already know it now better than anyone.
Ukraine wouldn’t be performing half as well without U.S/NATO surveilance, intelligence, weapons, volunteers, advisors, strategic planing, Electronic warfare, Radar detection, hacking, training, propaganda etc. Half the war is against Ukraine, the other half against everything NATO has to offer without officially putting boots on the ground(beyond “volunteers”).
We pushed the envelope, Russia threatens with Nukes if the West interferes, but we’ve clearly interfered massively and called their bluff, yet they don’t dare use Nukes because they know it’s game over if they do.
They can threaten with Nukes all they want, but we know they’ll sooner retreat from Ukraine than use them.
For 8 years, Ukraine was extensively trained, armed and funded, for 8 years they’ve been encouraged to not go trough with any sort of resolution to the isues with Russia, for 8 years Russia kept the Donbass conflict alive to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.. then in February, Russia thought they’d launch a “special operation” meant to intimidate Ukraine into giving up on their leaderships aspiration to become a U.S vassal.. and the trap was sprung.
In my mind, Russia got completely outplayed politically right in their front yard which makes this particularly embarrassing, and their last resort was using violence, and it turned out to be exactly what everyone was preparing and hoping for, now Ukraine is there to be the sacrificial lamb in taking them down.
What is Russia going to do about it, bring US into the war?
I would think that would be so obvious that no such instructions would be required
You have to be an idiot not to know this 🙄
You’d expect the people in that line of work to have a decent enough grasp of the concept of “plausible deniability” to keep their trap shut.
The Guardian using the passive voice in the headline to make it appear a bold statement has been made by loads of important people. Let’s find out the reality:
>Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official, said: “My personal view is it’s unwise. I am surprised at the extent of official confirmation of the role of US intelligence in the sinking into Moscow, and even more so the killing of the generals.
>“The big concern is that this sort of public confirmation of this extensive US role in the setbacks dealt to the Russians may provoke Putin into escalation in a way that he might not otherwise feel it necessary to escalate.”
>John Sipher, who served for 28 years in the CIA’s clandestine service, some of that time in Moscow, thought the decision to disclose details of intelligence sharing was misguided, but for different reasons.
>“I just think it’s disrespectful to the Ukrainians,” Sipher said. “It’s taking away from the people who are actually on the ground, who are taking advantage of the intelligence, who are collecting their own intelligence, who are fighting day and night.”
So we have 2 people who are out of the loop claiming there’s “risk of escalation” and it’s “disrespectful to Ukrainians”. Jeez, I wonder if Ukrainian relations and Russia’s responses were ever spoken about when discussing strategy.
Seems the Guardian want to play down the importance of US intelligence, as well as instil a bit of Putin-esque escalation fear.
I fear that the age of social media and the younger generation makes this problem much worse, People no longer feel like they accomplished anything without bragging about it on social media, or to their friends.
I know a few people with security clearance and I was always uncomfortable with how easily they share such information even if they claim that its okay without giving names and details, eventually this can lead to such news being printed.
8 comments
Regardles if they keep quiet or not, it’s then just an open secret.. everyone knows it, everyone knew it before some came out and said it.. it’s very obvious, and the Russians surely already know it now better than anyone.
Ukraine wouldn’t be performing half as well without U.S/NATO surveilance, intelligence, weapons, volunteers, advisors, strategic planing, Electronic warfare, Radar detection, hacking, training, propaganda etc. Half the war is against Ukraine, the other half against everything NATO has to offer without officially putting boots on the ground(beyond “volunteers”).
We pushed the envelope, Russia threatens with Nukes if the West interferes, but we’ve clearly interfered massively and called their bluff, yet they don’t dare use Nukes because they know it’s game over if they do.
They can threaten with Nukes all they want, but we know they’ll sooner retreat from Ukraine than use them.
For 8 years, Ukraine was extensively trained, armed and funded, for 8 years they’ve been encouraged to not go trough with any sort of resolution to the isues with Russia, for 8 years Russia kept the Donbass conflict alive to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.. then in February, Russia thought they’d launch a “special operation” meant to intimidate Ukraine into giving up on their leaderships aspiration to become a U.S vassal.. and the trap was sprung.
In my mind, Russia got completely outplayed politically right in their front yard which makes this particularly embarrassing, and their last resort was using violence, and it turned out to be exactly what everyone was preparing and hoping for, now Ukraine is there to be the sacrificial lamb in taking them down.
What is Russia going to do about it, bring US into the war?
I would think that would be so obvious that no such instructions would be required
You have to be an idiot not to know this 🙄
You’d expect the people in that line of work to have a decent enough grasp of the concept of “plausible deniability” to keep their trap shut.
The Guardian using the passive voice in the headline to make it appear a bold statement has been made by loads of important people. Let’s find out the reality:
>Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official, said: “My personal view is it’s unwise. I am surprised at the extent of official confirmation of the role of US intelligence in the sinking into Moscow, and even more so the killing of the generals.
>“The big concern is that this sort of public confirmation of this extensive US role in the setbacks dealt to the Russians may provoke Putin into escalation in a way that he might not otherwise feel it necessary to escalate.”
>John Sipher, who served for 28 years in the CIA’s clandestine service, some of that time in Moscow, thought the decision to disclose details of intelligence sharing was misguided, but for different reasons.
>“I just think it’s disrespectful to the Ukrainians,” Sipher said. “It’s taking away from the people who are actually on the ground, who are taking advantage of the intelligence, who are collecting their own intelligence, who are fighting day and night.”
So we have 2 people who are out of the loop claiming there’s “risk of escalation” and it’s “disrespectful to Ukrainians”. Jeez, I wonder if Ukrainian relations and Russia’s responses were ever spoken about when discussing strategy.
Seems the Guardian want to play down the importance of US intelligence, as well as instil a bit of Putin-esque escalation fear.
I fear that the age of social media and the younger generation makes this problem much worse, People no longer feel like they accomplished anything without bragging about it on social media, or to their friends.
I know a few people with security clearance and I was always uncomfortable with how easily they share such information even if they claim that its okay without giving names and details, eventually this can lead to such news being printed.
good advice indeed