Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[mike2000 is back]

From the outset western military specialists were saying even if the Russians were to take the land to hold Ukraine against the will of the people would need a force of 1 million soldiers and every month would see hundreds going home in body bags. Even to hold the Dombas area would need 100,000 troops. Conscripts do not know how to conduct this type of combat so the casualty level will be very high. The Russian approach of scaring Ukraine into submission failed and now the take it by force option is also failing. If the Russians were wise to avoid further losses and embarrassment they would withdraw.

Dude, as i said, most western intelligence services and analyst were predicting a quick Russian invasion of Ukraine.


THE CIA THOUGHT PUTIN WOULD QUICKLY CONQUER UKRAINE. WHY DID THEY GET IT SO WRONG?

High-tech surveillance may have blinded the U.S. to how corruption has weakened the Russian military.
James Risen, Ken Klippenstein
October 5 2022, 8:08 p.m.

President Joe Biden speaks during a visit at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Va., on July 8, 2022. Photo: Samuel Corum/AFP via Getty Images

EVER SINCE UKRAINE launched a successful counteroffensive against Russian forces in late August, American officials have tried to claim credit, insisting that U.S. intelligence has been key to Ukraine’s battlefield victories.

Yet U.S. officials have simultaneously downplayed their intelligence failures in Ukraine — especially their glaring mistakes at the outset of the war. When Putin invaded in February, U.S. intelligence officials told the White House that Russia would win in a matter of days by quickly overwhelming the Ukrainian army, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials, who asked not to be named to discuss sensitive information.

The Central Intelligence Agency was so pessimistic about Ukraine’s chances that officials told President Joe Biden and other policymakers that the best they could expect was that the remnants of Ukraine’s defeated forces would mount an insurgency, a guerrilla war against the Russian occupiers. By the time of the February invasion, the CIA was already planning how to provide covert support for a Ukrainian insurgency following a Russian military victory, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence reports at the time predicted that Kyiv would fall quickly, perhaps in a week or two at the most. The predictions spurred the Biden administration to secretly withdraw some key U.S. intelligence assets from Ukraine, including covert former special operations personnel on contract with the CIA, the current and former official.

Read more here:

The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?

High-tech surveillance may have blinded the U.S. to how corruption has weakened the Russian military.

theintercept.com

Russia's military performance in Ukraine has been an embarrassment and surprised even to us in the West. It has shown us that the country is full of corruption and the rot in the system goes way deeper than we thought and that we gave them way more credit than they deserved. This will have long term consequences for the country for decades to come, since we have now seen their true state of affairs. Lol They are sagging powe and will be even more so with the isolation and sanctions we have imposed on them(they will become a Chinese subordinate by default in the coling decades). China will be the real long term threat(reason US is focusing more on them and not Russia), Russia will just be a side show. Lol
To put things into perspectives, if the US was to fight Russia today, believe me that country will not last a few months. The only saving grace Russias has that makes the West even take them abit seriously is just their nuclear arsenal. Conventionally i doubt Russia can even take on normal european powers to be honest.

 

[jhungary]

I agree with the facts you pointed out. But this not full history, just selective facts. The origin of WW2 is a bit more complicated.

If we go back to what had happened before ww2, we can trace back to WW1 Treaty of Versailles, or even earlier.

Remember, the British killed more people, destroyed more nations than anyone else on earth throughout human history. Don't tell me they didn't have any responsibility on WW2.

Appeasement is the foreign policy of the British Empire, to make Germany attack the Soviet. Not to mention the divide and rule policy of the British Empire.

No one was innocent. The appeasement policy backfired.

In War Studies or History when people study war, you were taught war was not started for one single reason alone (Much like everything else), nothing happened for a singluarity, there are multiple reason why something happened. If you are a student of war, you learn about the Primus Casus Belli and Secundus Casus Belli

If we are to talk about what cause WW2. there are multitude of factors, it's like why US declare war on Japan, the primary cause is undoubtedly Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, that's the primary cause of war, because without that, the two side WILL NOT go to war. But then what make Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? That would have been the secondary cause, because Emperor of Japan (or Tojo to be precise) would not just wake up one day and have bomb Pearl Harbor on his to-do list. There must be a reason, or a list of reasoning or rationale to justify him doing just that, that entire list would have the secondary cause of war. That would include the reason of United State don't want to relinquish their territories in Pacific (Guam, Marianna, Philippine and so on) and that is why US pressed Japan hard on issue, which in turn leads to Japan see there are no other way but to preempt the American and bring American to war.

On British and WW2 case, the primary cause is undoubtedly Germany launch an invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, because that trigger the mutual defensive pact on the Great Britain and France, which essentially bring the entire Europe in war. The problem is, what Germany justify on their main cause of war would include the unfair treatment of post WW1 as Treaty of Versailles, specifically the Military mandate and the repatriation, while legitimise Germany War aims, but the fact that British and French allowing Nazi Germany to growth uncheck due to its appeasement policy if not false then it would outright arguabile. The main reason the British and French appease Germany is because they do not have another war in them back in late 1930, in fact, if Germany outright invade Britain, there are pretty much nothing the Brits could do except try to fight them off at seas. Judging by the failure of BEF and French at the early stage of fighting, had US not involved in WW2, British and France would probably only able to recover from WW1 in early to mid-1950s.

The only thing we can blame the British or French on WW2 is they chew off more than they can take, as evidentially how League of Nation had failed to prevent WW2. Simply because if you are to oppress the German, you need to have that big military power to back it up, the fact that they didn't mean they should go with a softer approach instead of a hardline approach toward the end of WW1.

 

[vi-va]

Well, if that is an unprovoked invasion between India and Pakistan, I would agree, the problem is, it's not always that clear cut. China sold weapon to Pakistan, and to some degree, train and transfer their technology to Pakistan, but I doubt China would do more.

War is not about who is right or who is wrong, war is about taking side. Bear in mind, many people speculated before this war started, Putin most likely and did seek China tacit approval before he begin his invasion, xi most likely would have supported Russia had this campaign did not simply went to shit. On the other hand, China lack of support now went before Military, but also in political term, for example, nobody would have said anything if China stands by Russia and veto the UN motion on both UNSC and UNGA because that's virtually non-consequential move, as Russia itself would have vetoed anyway, but then China still would not put itself on Russian side. You may argue China see that this is either an illegal war, or it was really none of their business or cave to international pressure, but other people will say this is just China playing side, I mean large majority of Chinese are on Russian side on this, so that would mostly reflect by their government, as the citizens was fed what the Government feed them.

If this is a limited war, China, would probably like Belorussia, would have engage in the late stage of the war and share the spoil, the fact that even Belorussia wasn't engaged in this war despite the fact that they allowed Russia to invade Ukraine from Belorussia soil, mostly because Russia failed spectacularly on this war and that was not foreseen by Chinese or Belorussian, and that's because even Russia did not foresee that coming on a full scale war.

Dude, if you read Chinese social media, this is not true.

1. Yes, lots of Chinese support Russia in the first couple of weeks. Because Russia asked NATO to stay away from Ukraine, that's a reasonable request.
2. Then Russia took 4 states of Ukraine, and merge them into Russia Federal. This is something totally different. No country merged the territory of another country which was recognized by UN since WW2 ended.
3. Then Russia start bombing Ukraine civilian facility. This is not liberation of Ukrainians at all.

Please go check Chinese social media, see what majority Chinese say. Most Chinese don't support Russia annexation, neither I.

I mean large majority of Chinese are on Russian side on this, so that would mostly reflect by their government, as the citizens was fed what the Government feed them.

China is a rational country, or realist. China care her own national interest.

What can China get if China support Russia annexation? I don't see Russia making an offer, I don't know the details. But apparently, China's loss will be huge.

While if India want to have a large scale war against Pakistan. It's in China's core national interest to torn India apart. China would support Pakistan fully, and beat the India.

I can assure you, 99.9% Chinese will support Pakistan if the war breaks up between Pakistan and India. Chinese government has enough resource and weapons, intelligence, surveillance to give India a hard lesson.

 

[jhungary]

Dude, if you read Chinese social media, this is not true.

1. Yes, lots of Chinese support Russia in the first couple of weeks. Because Russia asked NATO to stay away from Ukraine, that's a reasonable request.
2. Then Russia took 4 states of Ukraine, and merge them into Russia Federal. This is something totally different. No country merged the territory of another country which was recognized by UN since WW2 ended.
3. Then Russia start bombing Ukraine civilian facility. This is not liberation of Ukrainians at all.

Please go check Chinese social media, see what majority Chinese say. Most Chinese don't support Russia annexation, neither I.




China is a rational country, or realist. China care her own national interest.

What can China get if China support Russia annexation? I don't see Russia making an offer, I don't know the details. But apparently, China's loss will be huge.

While if India want to have a large scale war against Pakistan. It's in China's core national interest to torn India apart. China would support Pakistan fully, and beat the India.

I can assure you, 99.9% Chinese will support Pakistan if the war breaks up between Pakistan and India. Chinese government has enough resource and weapons, intelligence, surveillance to give India a hard lesson.

About social media, it's really depends on where or which side you are watching. Even in Russia, I personally know groups that anti-war, but then that does not mean the war have no public backing.

I will agree to disagree to the rest, the only way to find out is if a war really do break out between India and Pakistan. And I don't plan or hoping for that to happen. Otherwise, it's all going to be speculation.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608757659230167042

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608761967426306048

HIMARS strikes again

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608824919617601536

Russian cruise missile shot down yesterday

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608716894177230850

Another Russian cruise missile shot down with MANPAD

 

[vi-va]

About social media, it's really depends on where or which side you are watching. Even in Russia, I personally know groups that anti-war, but then that does not mean the war have no public backing.

I will agree to disagree to the rest, the only way to find out is if a war really do break out between India and Pakistan. And I don't plan or hoping for that to happen. Otherwise, it's all going to be speculation.

You knew Chinese Quora - zhihu.com ? This is one of the most trustworthy media platform.

There are tons of serious discussion on Russia annexation. Over 80 percent Chinese disagree to the annexation. And by the way, zhihu.com is base on real-name system. You can't register lots of spam account.

Besides, lots of Chinese shocked how terrible Russian logistic is, as well as countless mistakes Russian Army made, not to mention the absence of Russian Air force.

So, you say there is stereotype propaganda campaign in China, no, most Chinese don't buy that bullshit.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Everyone knew it. Thanks.

But not the full picture of history.

Okay so what other act started WW2 if not Russia's and Germany's invasion of Poland?

 

[vi-va]

In War Studies or History when people study war, you were taught war was not started for one single reason alone (Much like everything else), nothing happened for a singluarity, there are multiple reason why something happened. If you are a student of war, you learn about the Primus Casus Belli and Secundus Casus Belli

If we are to talk about what cause WW2. there are multitude of factors, it's like why US declare war on Japan, the primary cause is undoubtedly Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, that's the primary cause of war, because without that, the two side WILL NOT go to war. But then what make Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? That would have been the secondary cause, because Emperor of Japan (or Tojo to be precise) would not just wake up one day and have bomb Pearl Harbor on his to-do list. There must be a reason, or a list of reasoning or rationale to justify him doing just that, that entire list would have the secondary cause of war. That would include the reason of United State don't want to relinquish their territories in Pacific (Guam, Marianna, Philippine and so on) and that is why US pressed Japan hard on issue, which in turn leads to Japan see there are no other way but to preempt the American and bring American to war.

On British and WW2 case, the primary cause is undoubtedly Germany launch an invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, because that trigger the mutual defensive pact on the Great Britain and France, which essentially bring the entire Europe in war. The problem is, what Germany justify on their main cause of war would include the unfair treatment of post WW1 as Treaty of Versailles, specifically the Military mandate and the repatriation, while legitimise Germany War aims, but the fact that British and French allowing Nazi Germany to growth uncheck due to its appeasement policy if not false then it would outright arguabile. The main reason the British and French appease Germany is because they do not have another war in them back in late 1930, in fact, if Germany outright invade Britain, there are pretty much nothing the Brits could do except try to fight them off at seas. Judging by the failure of BEF and French at the early stage of fighting, had US not involved in WW2, British and France would probably only able to recover from WW1 in early to mid-1950s.

The only thing we can blame the British or French on WW2 is they chew off more than they can take, as evidentially how League of Nation had failed to prevent WW2. Simply because if you are to oppress the German, you need to have that big military power to back it up, the fact that they didn't mean they should go with a softer approach instead of a hardline approach toward the end of WW1.

It's complicated. Different nations have different views. Leave it to historians.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[vi-va]

Okay so what other act started WW2 if not Russia's and Germany's invasion of Poland?

Long story

 

[jhungary]

You knew Chinese Quora - zhihu.com ? This is one of the most trustworthy media platform.

There are tons of serious discussion on Russia annexation. Over 80 percent Chinese disagree to the annexation. And by the way, zhihu.com is base on real-name system. You can't register lots of spam account.

Besides, lots of Chinese shocked how terrible Russian logistic is, as well as countless mistakes Russian Army made, not to mention the absence of Russian Air force.

So, you say there is stereotype propaganda campaign in China, no, most Chinese don't buy that bullshit.

Well, what I am saying is that information can be manipulated, and I did that both during my military and my law enforcement career. And as I said before, I don't believe in being right or wrong or whether you support annexation is the matter here.

I am not saying that there is a stereotype propaganda campaign in China, I am saying people tend to be fed by media, this is as true in China than in the West, the only difference is, Western media are two camps, left and right, and there is only one camp in China.

And I know about 知乎

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I agree with the facts you pointed out. But this not full history, just selective facts. The origin of WW2 is a bit more complicated.

If we go back to what had happened before ww2, we can trace back to WW1 Treaty of Versailles, or even earlier.

Remember, the British killed more people, destroyed more nations than anyone else on earth throughout human history. Don't tell me they didn't have any responsibility on WW2.

Appeasement is the foreign policy of the British Empire, to make Germany attack the Soviet. Not to mention the divide and rule policy of the British Empire.

No one was innocent. The appeasement policy backfired.

The Appeasement policy was put in place to avoid the ruinous consequences of WWI yet again. It did not work, because Hitler had a long term goal to conquer the East, and he was not going to be stopped. He announced his intention way before the Appeasement policy. It was put in place since the Germans used trickery to make the West believe they were much stronger than they actually were. As an example, French officers visited a number of Luftwaffe bases, and a single Geschwader was flown around to each airbase they visited with the aircrafts being repainted with new markings.

The Appeasement policy not working is one of the main reasons why Ukraine is getting support. People now realize that Hitler, Stalin and Putin are of the same type, and appeasement will only grow their appetite.

 

[vi-va]

The Appeasement policy was put in place to avoid the ruinous consequences of WWI yet again. It did not work, because Hitler had a long term goal to conquer the East, and he was not going to be stopped. He announced his intention way before the Appeasement policy. It was put in place since the Germans used trickery to make the West believe they were much stronger than they actually were. As an example, French officers visited a number of Luftwaffe bases, and a single Geschwader was flown around to each airbase they visited with the aircrafts being repainted with new markings.

The Appeasement policy not working is one of the main reasons why Ukraine is getting support. People now realize that Hitler, Stalin and Putin are of the same type, and appeasement will only grow their appetite.

True. Appeasement won a terrible reputation in WW2.
I will leave the reason of WW2 and Invasion of Ukraine to historians.

Well, what I am saying is that information can be manipulated, and I did that both during my military and my law enforcement career. And as I said before, I don't believe in being right or wrong or whether you support annexation is the matter here.

I am not saying that there is a stereotype propaganda campaign in China, I am saying people tend to be fed by media, this is as true in China than in the West, the only difference is, Western media are two camps, left and right, and there is only one camp in China.

And I know about 知乎

Good. I agree, and I don't believe right or wrong.

The only thing matters here is political analysis. China foreign policy is realism. China would have supported Russia much more if Russia made an offer. I didn't see that happening.

 

[Viet]

Dude, as i said, most western intelligence services and analyst were predicting a quick Russian invasion of Ukraine.


THE CIA THOUGHT PUTIN WOULD QUICKLY CONQUER UKRAINE. WHY DID THEY GET IT SO WRONG?

High-tech surveillance may have blinded the U.S. to how corruption has weakened the Russian military.
James Risen, Ken Klippenstein
October 5 2022, 8:08 p.m.

President Joe Biden speaks during a visit at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Va., on July 8, 2022. Photo: Samuel Corum/AFP via Getty Images

EVER SINCE UKRAINE launched a successful counteroffensive against Russian forces in late August, American officials have tried to claim credit, insisting that U.S. intelligence has been key to Ukraine’s battlefield victories.

Yet U.S. officials have simultaneously downplayed their intelligence failures in Ukraine — especially their glaring mistakes at the outset of the war. When Putin invaded in February, U.S. intelligence officials told the White House that Russia would win in a matter of days by quickly overwhelming the Ukrainian army, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials, who asked not to be named to discuss sensitive information.

The Central Intelligence Agency was so pessimistic about Ukraine’s chances that officials told President Joe Biden and other policymakers that the best they could expect was that the remnants of Ukraine’s defeated forces would mount an insurgency, a guerrilla war against the Russian occupiers. By the time of the February invasion, the CIA was already planning how to provide covert support for a Ukrainian insurgency following a Russian military victory, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence reports at the time predicted that Kyiv would fall quickly, perhaps in a week or two at the most. The predictions spurred the Biden administration to secretly withdraw some key U.S. intelligence assets from Ukraine, including covert former special operations personnel on contract with the CIA, the current and former official.

Read more here:

The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?

High-tech surveillance may have blinded the U.S. to how corruption has weakened the Russian military.

theintercept.com

Russias military performance has been an embarrassment and surprised even to us in the West. It has shown us that the country is full of corruption and rot in the system and that we gave them way more credit than they deserved. This will jave mong term consequences for the country for decades to come, since we have now seen their true state of affairs. Lol They are sagging power. China will be the real long term threat(reason US is docusing more on themand not Russia), Russia will just be a side show. Lol

To be honest

Most western military intelligence und western political centers had assumed Ukraine including Kiew would fall within a week. I myself had the same assessment.

But then after one week when Kiew still standing, it turns out Putin is the real saver of Ukraine.

He and the Russia red army are too corrupt, too arrogant and too incompetent.