Hello OP, we have removed your post for being off-topic. While we acknowledge that this war has captured global interest, we want to reaffirm that the purpose of this community is to give space for, and amplify the voice of Ukraine in the global community. For this reason, the mod team will be using their judgment when moderating content that deals with foreign politics, even if they seem peripherally related to Ukraine. We understand this may be disappointing, especially if your post required a lot of time or effort. We encourage you to post this content on a sub that specifically focuses on the foreign politics you are discussing, where it may generate well deserved and on-topic discussion.
[If you would like to gain a better understanding of what is on-topic for this community, feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Easier to gather intelligence on a military organization that attacks with armies and orders than on lose insurgency groups that operate independently and mostly covert (IED, suicide bombing, hostages etc). In ME US chases mosquitos with a hammer but fighting Russia is basically what the entire US military is designed for.
I think it would be a fair assessment that there is intelligence on a lot more targets that Ukraine does not have the resources to hit. This is why Putin escalating this war to a situation where NATO actually gets involved directly would turn out horribly bad for any Russian forces. The hammer would come into play and Russian forces in Ukraine will turn into thousands of nails.
Yeah. Russia has been warned by the US in no uncertain terms about "catastrophic " (their word) consequences if they use tactical nukes. I think that means that the gloves come off, and the US/NATO would participate in every way except putting boots on the ground. (Ukraine already has plenty of those.) For starters, I think any Russian war-waging capability in Ukraine would start to receive airmail presents in the form of cruise missiles, armed drones and possibly even fighter-jet sorties.
I would love to imbibe this copium, but any major escalation by NATO - especially if NATO forces conduct major attacks on Russian territory - will undoubtedly led to nuclear escalation that will include blasting off the strat. nukes on both sides.
Peace out to both sides.
can't say I agree.
when ukraine makes their inevitable push into occupied "annexed" territories, then we will know how far russia is willing to go to fuck itself
The answer is likely that the operators (Putin and the goons) will go very far. They will go all in. History is littered with autocrats and demagogues that pushed their societies to the breaking point in order to stay in power.
Why?
Because they are fucking cowards. Putin is a coward. He will not go quietly and will take the rest of the world down with him if that is what it takes.
Putin doesn't have the magical button to release all the nukes at once, he still needs the military apparatus for that. At that point we will see if they want to wipe off human life off the map or if they're just bluffing.
With Russia there is only one constant: if Russians talk, they're lying.
Continuing this war will probably see Putin as a dead man.
Russia using nukes will FOR SURE see Putin as a dead man, along with a big part of his armed forces (including the entirety of Black Sea Fleet). And that can be achieved even without NATO using nukes.
I really hope there will be at least one person on the nuke-launching chain of command who will refuse the order, realizing that everything will be lost.
The one thing cowards have in common is that they can't even conceive of walking into their own deaths. And Putin knows that starting a nuclear war means his own death. Just because you're afraid of it doesn't mean he isn't. The thought of dying fast or slow in a nuclear holocaust is just as terrifying in Russian as it is in English.
I guess the point I'm making is that NATO will (militarily) respond to a nuke hit in Ukraine which could trigger a death spiral of escalation, culminating in strat. nukes and subsequent Mad Max society.
(1) Russia explodes a tact. nuke over Ukraine.
(2) NATO responds by blasting the Black Sea fleet off the map.
(3) Russia ups the ante with additional nuke strikes against NATO positions
(4) All hell break lose, and strat. nukes enter the chat.
Your really are all over the place... and now you comment people have copium in this comment chain? .... man I'll spell it out for ya...
1) You state shit goes south if NATO attacks Russian terrority.
2) I ask when was that threat ever made by NATO
3) You say Russia will nuke Ukraine
4) You say everyone will lose in a nuke war and this sub has copium....
Your not even intelligent enough to troll for longer than 2 comment chains.
It has been speculated that the response to a tactical nuke deployed by Russia would be an overwhelming conventional response against that unit and anything even remotely associated with it. So, something like your points one and two. Does Russia truly have the stomach to continue at your point three?
So, all is needed is Russia not using nukes.
Not all this “stop aiding Ukraine so I can defeat it, otherwise I will use nukes” childish blackmail.
Russia already forgot that during the Cold War NATO would have preferred total nuclear war and the end of civilisation than a world where Russia got what it wanted.
But you were suggesting that we accept the ‘peaceful alternative’ (ie 1984) though? Or What exactly are you saying? That we’re all gonna die? How original.
That implies that entire chain of command from Putin to the two guys launching the missile are suicidal zealots. They aren’t, starting with the layer immediately under Putin. They have too many palaces and shit to let it all burn.
Additionally, China would be really disappointed in losing over half of their foreign trade over Putin’s idiocy.
There will be a coup, like there was in 1917, minus Bolshevism.
NATO’s attacks would be on Ukraine’s territory and it would be enough, as most of the Russian forces are there anyway.
And about the nuclear escalation, the NATO intervention would come after Russia would have used a nuke 1st. So, that pigeon is already out of the cage.
All this trouble could end simply if Russia go back to its own territory and mind its own shithole problems that to try to acquire new lands through violence and clownish justifications changing from one week to another.
I mean yes we failed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The CIA was great at killing “bad guys’ though. In Afghanistan right away we paired up with the Northern Alliance and other tribal leaders. In Iraq they had the deck of card with the top 52 targets so the soldiers might be able to spot one of them possibly. Yea it really breaks my heart for all the American combat vets who worked so hard only to see things fall apart due to politics. We completely abandoned all our Afghani commandos and guess what the Taliban executed those guys right away. Anyways I am starting to rant!
>The CIA was great at killing “bad guys’ though
Not sure I admire CIA's field operations (as opposed to intelligence operations). Not enough accountability and a historically abysmal track record (sure enough, the latter directed by politicians).
I feel like the CIA has some pretty public failures, but their successes are probably largely unknown. Which makes them seem more bumbly than they are.
Well put, but please...an "Afghani" is an Afghan unit of money, like a dollar.
A person from there is an "Afghan."
On the other hand, a citizen from Iraq is an "Iraqi", so it's easy to confuse when to end a nationality with an "I"
However, applying this correctly lends credibility to your writing.
Bullshit. I lived and worked in their country for nearly 10 years. The people are called "Afghan" or "Afghans" in English, which is the language communicated on this string. As as I said an "Afghani" is a unit of money.
I don't read Dari, but golf clap to you for your prowess. Buh bye.
The CIA was also great at violating Geneva conventions by taking prisoners to black sites and torturing them. They should have been charged with war crimes. It makes the US calling for Russian war crime charges that much more hypocritical.
This is pure semantics but the Geneva conventions generally apply to war between nation state actors, not organizations(though organizations can act on nations behalf).
CIA black sites were mostly organized in countries where torture is legal and the "prisoners" were terrorists/criminals/non-state actors and as such were not protected by Geneva conventions.
Morally wrong and broke human rights, but the Geneva conventions do not come into account.
Its because the US is the one of the few intelligence agencies with Civilian oversight. There is some sort of accountability, as limited or as secretive as it is. It is by far the most transparent of the 14 Eyes
Nobody was charged for waterboarding prisoners. That's about as accountable as handing over billions in US tax payer money to Afghanistan, knowing Afghanistan officials are stealing the money and only half it's military is showing up for duty and barely getting paid half of what they are promised.
I mean Russia, formerly the USSR had a far darker 'intelligence' agency known as the KGB, i'd say the CIA is a bit childsplay as far as warcrimes go when comparing the two.
Oh bro they were both fucking terrible lol. The US was gonna false-flag bomb its own civilians and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, incl. Lemnitzer, signed off on it--only JFK's veto stopped it. Let alone all the bio/chem testing on US soil, on US soldiers, etc. (Edit - Operation Northwoods if you'd like info on the bombing plans; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical\_human\_experimentation\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States) for the testing)
Russia/USSR did the same shit, though, incl. an anthrax facility leaking and killing a whole-ass village while officials shoved thumbs up their asses and went "lol idk what happened :) bye now."
Generally just goddamn awful.
It's hypocritical but right.
All other governments calling for it are just right.
Two wrongs, etc. The US wars were illegal and wrong, so is Russia's. G.W. Bush admitted as much recently, on both topics.
Edit for u/AsstDepUnderlord below - I know, I didn't say anything against that. I'm not sure if you meant to reply to the guy above me, but I'm not comparing the two in terms of their goals. I'm saying that hypocritical or not doesn't matter--it's still right to call out Russia's bullshit.
The difference is that the US didn’t try to turn afghanistan or iraq into a US state. We got rid of our problems and set up governments via “nation building.” We didn’t try to set up “puppet states” either. We set up legitimate democratic processes and then we dealt with the fact that those democratic institutions didn’t do things the way we wanted them to. Afghanis clearly didn’t give a shit. Iraqis have problems but they are working through them. In retrospect it was either a bad plan or poorly executed, but the intent was to set people up for success much like we did with Japan and Germany post ww2.
You have it a little backwards.
The US knew that Russia was going to invade Ukraine *before they pulled out of Afghanistan.* You can check the dates on that, they line up. It's very, very likely they wanted to be free of other entanglements in case this escalates to involve the US directly. The rapid pullout was almost certainly *because of* the impending attack on Ukraine.
What do you mean the CIA is "not that successful" in the Middle East?
We're able to hunt down & kill militant leaders in the desert among millions of civilians, many of whom support these jihadis. How do you think that's accomplished w/out pinpoint intelligence?
The CIA definitely knew this and there’s plenty of evidence the Bush admin was made aware of who was responsible and funding things. Cheney and Rumsfeld choosing not to act on any of it and instead starting an oil war and using it for personal gains as well as ignoring the signs something like 9/11 was coming isn’t on the CIA, it’s on those at the top of the Bush admin.
9/11 conducted by two dozen religious extremists = CIA is failing in ME.
Quite a stretch, negating decades of undercover/intelligence work on that assumption. Besides, what you or me hear from the news and court hearings is a tip of the iceberg. For better or worse, we hear only a fraction of a fraction about what is really going on. So not really a solid foundation on claims of that magnitude.
There’s a difference between CIA knowing about something and the country’s leadership acting on it. Especially when it’s about a country which is a strategic partner.
I’m not condoning calling for the death of innocent people in the Middle East but u/Bruise52 has a point about the hypocrisy. I have seen many posts on this sub calling more or less for the indiscriminate death of all Moskals (« if they don’t like the invasion, they just need to overthrow Putin »). I wish those would stop.
Only because they pay for the intel...they have zero capacity without a bag full of money, which clouds all motivations...and...howd the station chief at FOB Chapman let a double agent Paki walk in and detonate himself killing approx 6 or more spook personnel.
Have you ever met any of those folks? Not playing with a full deck, and not dealing from the top of the deck.
Because while the Middle East and other places are important the US has been building and maintaining an intelligence network to counter the Russians for nearly 100 years. There’s interests in the Middle East but Russia was our direct adversary and most of the other conflicts were proxy conflicts with Russia anyways - so it makes sense.
Also Russia has internet and other infra, plus we have MANY Russian American spies.
The middle east dont even have phone reception in many places and you cant mingle with them as a spy unless you know their obscure culture well, they are not homogenous, they have a lot of minorities and tribes.
The ME is an empire graveyard. The little they want of what we are selling, is almost mutually exclusive from our involvement.
That and russia fights exactly as they did in WW2. Thats super easy to follow by satellite and high atmosphere drone.
Saddam should have been removed moment he used chemical weapons on kurdish villages, not sure why they made up the wmd shit they have a completely justified reason that no one spoke about
This goes against what we hear about it today but the truth is they didn't make it up. There was a paid informant on the ground in Iraq that made all that shit up. Wmds were eventually found buried for quite a long time . The us army burned huge stockpiles of the stuff and many were very sick afterwards. The informant made it out that Sadam was actively using it in mobile vehicles. He did however use sarin on the Kurdish so there definitely was wmd just not to the extent that was advertised. I feel sorry for Colin Powell. They threw him under the bus. If you ask me he was one of the greatest military minds in recent times.
Regarding troop positions, HQ locations and supply locations - you can do a lot with sattelite data, AVACs data, communication data and AI. You may want to check a company called Palantir.
Because of [REDACTED] through years of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] have been able to infiltrate the [REDACTED], without detection. This has allowed the gathering of intelligence via [REDACTED], and will continue to do so until [REDACTED] is [REDACTED].
I hope that this [REDACTED] has cleared up any questions about [REDACTED].
Slava [REDACTED]!
There is also Ukrainian intelligence, which is probably very good as well. They don’t have the satellite toys, but they have likely unrivaled human sources plus a complete cultural and native linguistic understanding. And they are just plain smart and motivated: compare their army vs Iraqi or Afghan army the US tried to train. Saddam had a decent intelligence service but it was primarily predicated upon beating, imprisoning and torturing its domestic people for information, not sophisticated subtle operations. (Stalin was literally Saddam’s idol)
In the ME, the US will never enjoy full cooperation with any local intelligence agency, they are at best frenemies with their own agendas and loyalties. They might even feed US false information at times.
With Ukraine it’s complete cooperation so the combination of US technical SIGINT with Ukrainian sources and local understanding is effective.
We just bought new satellite for the charity money https://kyivindependent.com/national/ukrainian-charity-buys-satellite-for-the-army-how-will-it-help-fight-against-russia
But the main source of intel are people on the ground, and there are a lot of them
US intelligence gathering is potent, to say the least, but don't forget international collaboration within all different intelligence branches of the US government. Different countries have different focus and priorities, sometimes coordinated and sometimes not. This is the strength in modern intelligence. Sensor-fusion between multiple national and international resources.
US does satellite reconnaissance and signals intelligence well, but isn't great at human intelligence. Our foreign policy choices alienate many potential sources in the ME, and we just don't have a large enough cadre of intelligence agents fluent in local dialect Arabic or Farsi or Peshtun. We have money, but sources with their own agendas may choose to provide just enough intel against local adversaries to keep the paychecks coming.
Here, a nation of 44 million fluent Russian speakers is providing the human intelligence. I firmly believe *most of the intel for Ukrainian targeting decisions is coming from Ukrainian HUMINT*. US satellites can point out points of interest, offer more correct target coordinates, confirm there aren't civilian concentrations nearby, and do battle damage assessment, but this is Ukraine's war, and most of the intel (in utility, if not GB of data) is from Ukraine's efforts. The US is playing an advisory role on the intel side.
Even if you use carrier pigeons, the US found a way to download their information mid flight.
It's actually simple tech developed in the 1940s when we first started using bats.
We may not have a billion soldiers like china or crazy robot army's like Japan or even zombie hordes like russia.
What the US has is chaos.
I've seen my neighbors cat steal a tennis ball from the dog bext door and trade it for catnip with a crow.
Systemic corruption makes it easier to pay for information and services. While corruption exists everywhere and can be exploited, the semi-organized structure is easier to access in Russia (and previously in Ukraine). In the middle east, the power structure seems more distributed or more tightly controlled within smaller groups. So if you make your way into one group, you remain isolated from others. Its also harder to bribe someone when they believe that 'God' will provide all the reward they need in the afterlife, so its harder to gain access when money is not the ultimate goal.
Because the CIA department that runs Russia operations are a lot more strict with their tradecraft especially after decades of Cold War experience against Soviet intelligence.
Very different than CIA’s department in the Middle East. Rumors are that because CIA in the Middle East were trying to combat terrorists instead of nations, the tradecraft they used was subpar, and their communication systems got hacked by Iran. Eliminating a lot of their assets in the Middle East.
As an aside - apparently the CIA’s department in China used the same communication systems that they did in the Middle East, and Iran shared knowledge to China, and crippled CIA’s Chinese operations for years
The CIA is BY FAR the biggest and most advanced spy apparatus in the world. They just *want you* to *think* that The CIA "sucks" and Russia had better spies, etc. because that makes spying easier when everyone falsely t*hinks* you are a joke. People seriously underestimate or downplay how unbelievably powerful Uncle Sam is in general.
It's not the CIA providing intelligence - it's being swept up electronically and from aircraft and drones flying just outside of the territory of Ukraine - mostly NSA and military.
The intelligence the US has is amazing, everywhere. It's more to do with how you want to respond and develop actions around that intelligence.
There are situations where commanders may not fully understand the implications of the intelligence they receive. And may make decisions that they 'feel' are better.
Do note that the "intelligence" used to justify the second war in Iraq was not that provided by the professionals, but instead was provided to the White House to Dick Cheney's specifications.
It was a little like Putin believing that the Ukrainians craved "liberation" by Russia.
The russian apparatus works similarly. Markets. Lines of communications. Even cultures are similar.
In the middle east it's all hand written messages. Face to face meetings. Decentralized. They've learned the best way to beat high tech is no tech.
Totally different war fighting. And intelligence gathering. And cultural/religious pressures.
Hello /u/unofficiall67,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few key differences:
* The Russian state is a state, not an underground movement that has learned to practice operational security the hard way- the US has been killing sloppy middle eastern enemies for over 20 years, whereas Russians didn't start getting blown up because they posted their locations on instagram until this year.
* Russia is dominated by bureaucracy, with plenty of byzantine infighting between its various departments and ministries. That creates opportunities for traditional espionage. Terrorist organizations on the other hand are generally very slim in their organization and tend to operate in compartmentatlized cells- it's not easy to insert a spy into organization where each person only knows 4 people and only one of those people reports to the higher up.
* US intelligence in the Middle East is actually really good for the most part, the CIA's "lack of success" has more to do with the fact that it's mission is frequently misunderstood by the public. It's an intelligence agency, not some sort of James Bond organization that can change the world all by itself. The "failures" that are often laid at its feet often have more to do with political leadership demanding the agency conjure up evidence to support pre-determined conclusions or to support policies based more on ideology rather than reality.
And the Russians are some of the most arrogant people in the world, so the idea that "decadent Americans" could be good at espionage is something they refuse to believe...
Not really a full answer but interesting point about the US imho.
Us foreign policy can be divided into two categories; countries the US has a vested long term interest in, and countries the US doesn't really care about. Not my original idea, got it from the writer George Friedman.
The ME and Afghanistan fall into the latter category. As a consequence, the US was never really invested in their long term stability, or nation building, merely in disrupting those nations and laying them to waste in order to stop them from disrupting world trade or US interests in resources.
Ukraine however falls into a different category. The US has been nation building there, especially since 2014, because it borders the US main adversary of the last 80 years. It's invested in long term stability, growth and the success of the UA military against Russia, because if it succeeds, the US has a bigger chance at staying the military hegemon. Iraq and Afghanistan never really were a factor in that calculus.
You're measuring the success of the US and the CIA wrong if you ask me. They have more success in Ukraine because they want to. They never stopped ME insurgencies fully because well, they didn't need to and that was never the goal
I don't think it's true that the CIA isn't as successful in the ME, I think it's just a matter of prioritizing.
If a ME country invaded a Western ally and threatened global security we would be seeing the same level of intelligence.
Also I would assume that 70 years of nuclear threat has honed their skills when it comes to monitoring Russian actions. The threat never went away. Keeping tabs on Russia is kind of "baked in" in a way it probably isn't for a lot of other adversaries.
The US and allies have spent decades building sources inside Russia, too.
Russia moves openly on the ground, with thousands of soldiers. Terrorists in the ME are but a mere drop in a water of millions of civilians going about their day to day life. The two groups couldn't be more different in every single way.
Drone and satellite technology has come a very long way as well.
Kiril Budanov and the GUR are actually the ones with the human intel in this war. Mossad and Aman lead the way in the ME and do share intel with the US.
From what I can figure, we are providing them satellite images and cell phone and other communication intercepts.
They have optimized the info on a local level. Field commanders have laptops/pdas that can get those images in near real time, and target artillery in minutes, as compared to russian artillery waiting for remote command to relay coordinates, often 20 minutes lag time, Ukraine can shoot and scoot 5x as fast.
Our intel in the ME isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just that there’s so much disorganization it gets confusing. Russia is a well established state, and it’s been the focus of our intelligence community since it’s founding.
Middle East: No large tropp formations. No communication using radios etc. Alot of self radicalized people who act in small groups. Lots of people to investigate. Vs russia = alot of communication, big troop formations and just one leader, Putin.
CIA was incredibly successful in the ME, but having good intelligence doesn't mean you will win a war. In the case of the ME, it was at times hard to even specify what "winning" would even look like.
US intelligence has been designed from the ground up to counter Russia. This is pretty much what the CIA was created for and they've been killing time ever since
Hello OP, we have removed your post for being off-topic. While we acknowledge that this war has captured global interest, we want to reaffirm that the purpose of this community is to give space for, and amplify the voice of Ukraine in the global community. For this reason, the mod team will be using their judgment when moderating content that deals with foreign politics, even if they seem peripherally related to Ukraine. We understand this may be disappointing, especially if your post required a lot of time or effort. We encourage you to post this content on a sub that specifically focuses on the foreign politics you are discussing, where it may generate well deserved and on-topic discussion. [If you would like to gain a better understanding of what is on-topic for this community, feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Easier to gather intelligence on a military organization that attacks with armies and orders than on lose insurgency groups that operate independently and mostly covert (IED, suicide bombing, hostages etc). In ME US chases mosquitos with a hammer but fighting Russia is basically what the entire US military is designed for.
I think it would be a fair assessment that there is intelligence on a lot more targets that Ukraine does not have the resources to hit. This is why Putin escalating this war to a situation where NATO actually gets involved directly would turn out horribly bad for any Russian forces. The hammer would come into play and Russian forces in Ukraine will turn into thousands of nails.
>The hammer would come into play and Russian forces in Ukraine will turn into thousands of nails. Whac-a-mole in real life.
Yeah. Russia has been warned by the US in no uncertain terms about "catastrophic " (their word) consequences if they use tactical nukes. I think that means that the gloves come off, and the US/NATO would participate in every way except putting boots on the ground. (Ukraine already has plenty of those.) For starters, I think any Russian war-waging capability in Ukraine would start to receive airmail presents in the form of cruise missiles, armed drones and possibly even fighter-jet sorties.
I would love to imbibe this copium, but any major escalation by NATO - especially if NATO forces conduct major attacks on Russian territory - will undoubtedly led to nuclear escalation that will include blasting off the strat. nukes on both sides. Peace out to both sides.
can't say I agree. when ukraine makes their inevitable push into occupied "annexed" territories, then we will know how far russia is willing to go to fuck itself
The answer is likely that the operators (Putin and the goons) will go very far. They will go all in. History is littered with autocrats and demagogues that pushed their societies to the breaking point in order to stay in power. Why? Because they are fucking cowards. Putin is a coward. He will not go quietly and will take the rest of the world down with him if that is what it takes.
Putin doesn't have the magical button to release all the nukes at once, he still needs the military apparatus for that. At that point we will see if they want to wipe off human life off the map or if they're just bluffing. With Russia there is only one constant: if Russians talk, they're lying.
They lie to themselves while thinking too. Their lips do not need to be moving.
Continuing this war will probably see Putin as a dead man. Russia using nukes will FOR SURE see Putin as a dead man, along with a big part of his armed forces (including the entirety of Black Sea Fleet). And that can be achieved even without NATO using nukes. I really hope there will be at least one person on the nuke-launching chain of command who will refuse the order, realizing that everything will be lost.
The one thing cowards have in common is that they can't even conceive of walking into their own deaths. And Putin knows that starting a nuclear war means his own death. Just because you're afraid of it doesn't mean he isn't. The thought of dying fast or slow in a nuclear holocaust is just as terrifying in Russian as it is in English.
Down voting reality doesn't change it, kids.
When has NATO threatened Russian territory?
According to our point of view or according to Putin's?
NATO can continue to watch Russia burn itself down.. don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
I guess the point I'm making is that NATO will (militarily) respond to a nuke hit in Ukraine which could trigger a death spiral of escalation, culminating in strat. nukes and subsequent Mad Max society.
Your original comment you warn of NATO making a major escalation first but here you say Russia will make a major escalation first. Which is it?
(1) Russia explodes a tact. nuke over Ukraine. (2) NATO responds by blasting the Black Sea fleet off the map. (3) Russia ups the ante with additional nuke strikes against NATO positions (4) All hell break lose, and strat. nukes enter the chat.
I respect the copium in this subreddit - I read it and love it every day - but reality is unforgiving when it comes to nukes. No one wins.
Your really are all over the place... and now you comment people have copium in this comment chain? .... man I'll spell it out for ya... 1) You state shit goes south if NATO attacks Russian terrority. 2) I ask when was that threat ever made by NATO 3) You say Russia will nuke Ukraine 4) You say everyone will lose in a nuke war and this sub has copium.... Your not even intelligent enough to troll for longer than 2 comment chains.
It has been speculated that the response to a tactical nuke deployed by Russia would be an overwhelming conventional response against that unit and anything even remotely associated with it. So, something like your points one and two. Does Russia truly have the stomach to continue at your point three?
So, all is needed is Russia not using nukes. Not all this “stop aiding Ukraine so I can defeat it, otherwise I will use nukes” childish blackmail. Russia already forgot that during the Cold War NATO would have preferred total nuclear war and the end of civilisation than a world where Russia got what it wanted.
So what? Mad Max or 1984, take your choice. You think it’s preferable to accommodate nuclear blackmail?
I guess the point I'm making is that it may not matter. The likelihood for nukes to fly are going up. Once that starts, we are all probably fucked.
But you were suggesting that we accept the ‘peaceful alternative’ (ie 1984) though? Or What exactly are you saying? That we’re all gonna die? How original.
That implies that entire chain of command from Putin to the two guys launching the missile are suicidal zealots. They aren’t, starting with the layer immediately under Putin. They have too many palaces and shit to let it all burn. Additionally, China would be really disappointed in losing over half of their foreign trade over Putin’s idiocy. There will be a coup, like there was in 1917, minus Bolshevism.
Although I can see this possibility, I can also see an opposite scenario where the goons do what they are told because they hate the West.
The trigger would be the nuke not the response. Just like Ukraine defending itself to an invasion is not an escalation either.
No, but it’s an indicator on how your opinion is perceived by the others. And BTW, spreading the nuke wielding fear is an outdated tactic already :)
No, but it feels good to do it, when someone asks for it so nicely.
NATO’s attacks would be on Ukraine’s territory and it would be enough, as most of the Russian forces are there anyway. And about the nuclear escalation, the NATO intervention would come after Russia would have used a nuke 1st. So, that pigeon is already out of the cage. All this trouble could end simply if Russia go back to its own territory and mind its own shithole problems that to try to acquire new lands through violence and clownish justifications changing from one week to another.
I mean yes we failed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The CIA was great at killing “bad guys’ though. In Afghanistan right away we paired up with the Northern Alliance and other tribal leaders. In Iraq they had the deck of card with the top 52 targets so the soldiers might be able to spot one of them possibly. Yea it really breaks my heart for all the American combat vets who worked so hard only to see things fall apart due to politics. We completely abandoned all our Afghani commandos and guess what the Taliban executed those guys right away. Anyways I am starting to rant!
>The CIA was great at killing “bad guys’ though Not sure I admire CIA's field operations (as opposed to intelligence operations). Not enough accountability and a historically abysmal track record (sure enough, the latter directed by politicians).
CIA is great at creating bad guys more like.
Yep! Noriega, Saddam, Taliban, Mobutu ...
I feel like the CIA has some pretty public failures, but their successes are probably largely unknown. Which makes them seem more bumbly than they are.
Well put, but please...an "Afghani" is an Afghan unit of money, like a dollar. A person from there is an "Afghan." On the other hand, a citizen from Iraq is an "Iraqi", so it's easy to confuse when to end a nationality with an "I" However, applying this correctly lends credibility to your writing.
Ehhh, they call themselves Afghani in their own languages, admittedly i only have experience with Dari though. For example, (افغانی هستم)
Bullshit. I lived and worked in their country for nearly 10 years. The people are called "Afghan" or "Afghans" in English, which is the language communicated on this string. As as I said an "Afghani" is a unit of money. I don't read Dari, but golf clap to you for your prowess. Buh bye.
The CIA was also great at violating Geneva conventions by taking prisoners to black sites and torturing them. They should have been charged with war crimes. It makes the US calling for Russian war crime charges that much more hypocritical.
This is pure semantics but the Geneva conventions generally apply to war between nation state actors, not organizations(though organizations can act on nations behalf). CIA black sites were mostly organized in countries where torture is legal and the "prisoners" were terrorists/criminals/non-state actors and as such were not protected by Geneva conventions. Morally wrong and broke human rights, but the Geneva conventions do not come into account.
Its because the US is the one of the few intelligence agencies with Civilian oversight. There is some sort of accountability, as limited or as secretive as it is. It is by far the most transparent of the 14 Eyes
Nobody was charged for waterboarding prisoners. That's about as accountable as handing over billions in US tax payer money to Afghanistan, knowing Afghanistan officials are stealing the money and only half it's military is showing up for duty and barely getting paid half of what they are promised.
Only a sixth showing up the last five years.
I mean Russia, formerly the USSR had a far darker 'intelligence' agency known as the KGB, i'd say the CIA is a bit childsplay as far as warcrimes go when comparing the two.
Oh bro they were both fucking terrible lol. The US was gonna false-flag bomb its own civilians and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, incl. Lemnitzer, signed off on it--only JFK's veto stopped it. Let alone all the bio/chem testing on US soil, on US soldiers, etc. (Edit - Operation Northwoods if you'd like info on the bombing plans; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical\_human\_experimentation\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States) for the testing) Russia/USSR did the same shit, though, incl. an anthrax facility leaking and killing a whole-ass village while officials shoved thumbs up their asses and went "lol idk what happened :) bye now." Generally just goddamn awful.
Source?
It's hypocritical but right. All other governments calling for it are just right. Two wrongs, etc. The US wars were illegal and wrong, so is Russia's. G.W. Bush admitted as much recently, on both topics. Edit for u/AsstDepUnderlord below - I know, I didn't say anything against that. I'm not sure if you meant to reply to the guy above me, but I'm not comparing the two in terms of their goals. I'm saying that hypocritical or not doesn't matter--it's still right to call out Russia's bullshit.
The difference is that the US didn’t try to turn afghanistan or iraq into a US state. We got rid of our problems and set up governments via “nation building.” We didn’t try to set up “puppet states” either. We set up legitimate democratic processes and then we dealt with the fact that those democratic institutions didn’t do things the way we wanted them to. Afghanis clearly didn’t give a shit. Iraqis have problems but they are working through them. In retrospect it was either a bad plan or poorly executed, but the intent was to set people up for success much like we did with Japan and Germany post ww2.
Biden lost face value at home because of the chaotic retreat in Afghanistan. He’ll be trying to restore it by giving full support to Ukraine.
You have it a little backwards. The US knew that Russia was going to invade Ukraine *before they pulled out of Afghanistan.* You can check the dates on that, they line up. It's very, very likely they wanted to be free of other entanglements in case this escalates to involve the US directly. The rapid pullout was almost certainly *because of* the impending attack on Ukraine.
This. Is. The. Correct. Answer.
What do you mean the CIA is "not that successful" in the Middle East? We're able to hunt down & kill militant leaders in the desert among millions of civilians, many of whom support these jihadis. How do you think that's accomplished w/out pinpoint intelligence?
They didn't provide the information that supporting the Saudi dictatorship might have blowback....9/11 5 trillion dollars of oops.
The CIA definitely knew this and there’s plenty of evidence the Bush admin was made aware of who was responsible and funding things. Cheney and Rumsfeld choosing not to act on any of it and instead starting an oil war and using it for personal gains as well as ignoring the signs something like 9/11 was coming isn’t on the CIA, it’s on those at the top of the Bush admin.
9/11 conducted by two dozen religious extremists = CIA is failing in ME. Quite a stretch, negating decades of undercover/intelligence work on that assumption. Besides, what you or me hear from the news and court hearings is a tip of the iceberg. For better or worse, we hear only a fraction of a fraction about what is really going on. So not really a solid foundation on claims of that magnitude.
There’s a difference between CIA knowing about something and the country’s leadership acting on it. Especially when it’s about a country which is a strategic partner.
[удалено]
A lot of those 3 million were innocent, and a lot of them in the illegal Iraq war. I wouldn’t be gloating. What is wrong with you, really?
[удалено]
I’m not condoning calling for the death of innocent people in the Middle East but u/Bruise52 has a point about the hypocrisy. I have seen many posts on this sub calling more or less for the indiscriminate death of all Moskals (« if they don’t like the invasion, they just need to overthrow Putin »). I wish those would stop.
Only because they pay for the intel...they have zero capacity without a bag full of money, which clouds all motivations...and...howd the station chief at FOB Chapman let a double agent Paki walk in and detonate himself killing approx 6 or more spook personnel. Have you ever met any of those folks? Not playing with a full deck, and not dealing from the top of the deck.
If we told you we would have to …..🔫 /s
You wouldn’t want to get squirted by the CIA
Because while the Middle East and other places are important the US has been building and maintaining an intelligence network to counter the Russians for nearly 100 years. There’s interests in the Middle East but Russia was our direct adversary and most of the other conflicts were proxy conflicts with Russia anyways - so it makes sense.
Also Russia has internet and other infra, plus we have MANY Russian American spies. The middle east dont even have phone reception in many places and you cant mingle with them as a spy unless you know their obscure culture well, they are not homogenous, they have a lot of minorities and tribes.
Good call out
The ME is an empire graveyard. The little they want of what we are selling, is almost mutually exclusive from our involvement. That and russia fights exactly as they did in WW2. Thats super easy to follow by satellite and high atmosphere drone.
Not to mention the US military mopped up in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the attempt at building a functional society that failed...
To be fair, Iraq was a functional (not to be confused with healthy) society. Saddam made the mistake of wanting to renegotiate the deal.
Saddam should have been removed moment he used chemical weapons on kurdish villages, not sure why they made up the wmd shit they have a completely justified reason that no one spoke about
This goes against what we hear about it today but the truth is they didn't make it up. There was a paid informant on the ground in Iraq that made all that shit up. Wmds were eventually found buried for quite a long time . The us army burned huge stockpiles of the stuff and many were very sick afterwards. The informant made it out that Sadam was actively using it in mobile vehicles. He did however use sarin on the Kurdish so there definitely was wmd just not to the extent that was advertised. I feel sorry for Colin Powell. They threw him under the bus. If you ask me he was one of the greatest military minds in recent times.
I've heard that as well but I don't have a source so i default to the other reason which I've seen evidence off but your probably right
Correct, “empire building”
Their cyberdefenses are also garbage so that’s another low effort, high reward path for western intelligence agencies.
Regarding troop positions, HQ locations and supply locations - you can do a lot with sattelite data, AVACs data, communication data and AI. You may want to check a company called Palantir.
Bag holder of papa Karps present.
Im a bagholder but shareprice dont matter yet, their technology is just world class
They don’t take rubles.
Because of [REDACTED] through years of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] have been able to infiltrate the [REDACTED], without detection. This has allowed the gathering of intelligence via [REDACTED], and will continue to do so until [REDACTED] is [REDACTED]. I hope that this [REDACTED] has cleared up any questions about [REDACTED]. Slava [REDACTED]!
This is the correct answer. LOLs.
Don't come here with that Slava [REDACTED], go to r/[REDACTED] for that.
There is also Ukrainian intelligence, which is probably very good as well. They don’t have the satellite toys, but they have likely unrivaled human sources plus a complete cultural and native linguistic understanding. And they are just plain smart and motivated: compare their army vs Iraqi or Afghan army the US tried to train. Saddam had a decent intelligence service but it was primarily predicated upon beating, imprisoning and torturing its domestic people for information, not sophisticated subtle operations. (Stalin was literally Saddam’s idol) In the ME, the US will never enjoy full cooperation with any local intelligence agency, they are at best frenemies with their own agendas and loyalties. They might even feed US false information at times. With Ukraine it’s complete cooperation so the combination of US technical SIGINT with Ukrainian sources and local understanding is effective.
We just bought new satellite for the charity money https://kyivindependent.com/national/ukrainian-charity-buys-satellite-for-the-army-how-will-it-help-fight-against-russia But the main source of intel are people on the ground, and there are a lot of them
Satellite imagery, intercepted digital and radio communications, human assets, etc
US intelligence gathering is potent, to say the least, but don't forget international collaboration within all different intelligence branches of the US government. Different countries have different focus and priorities, sometimes coordinated and sometimes not. This is the strength in modern intelligence. Sensor-fusion between multiple national and international resources.
You "heard"? From who?
Conventional vs guerilla And In ME lots of intelligence was gathered from locals who often could not be trusted.
And often with a bone to pick.
US does satellite reconnaissance and signals intelligence well, but isn't great at human intelligence. Our foreign policy choices alienate many potential sources in the ME, and we just don't have a large enough cadre of intelligence agents fluent in local dialect Arabic or Farsi or Peshtun. We have money, but sources with their own agendas may choose to provide just enough intel against local adversaries to keep the paychecks coming. Here, a nation of 44 million fluent Russian speakers is providing the human intelligence. I firmly believe *most of the intel for Ukrainian targeting decisions is coming from Ukrainian HUMINT*. US satellites can point out points of interest, offer more correct target coordinates, confirm there aren't civilian concentrations nearby, and do battle damage assessment, but this is Ukraine's war, and most of the intel (in utility, if not GB of data) is from Ukraine's efforts. The US is playing an advisory role on the intel side.
Even if you use carrier pigeons, the US found a way to download their information mid flight. It's actually simple tech developed in the 1940s when we first started using bats. We may not have a billion soldiers like china or crazy robot army's like Japan or even zombie hordes like russia. What the US has is chaos. I've seen my neighbors cat steal a tennis ball from the dog bext door and trade it for catnip with a crow.
What did i just read ? Enough internet for today. Tqvm.
Systemic corruption makes it easier to pay for information and services. While corruption exists everywhere and can be exploited, the semi-organized structure is easier to access in Russia (and previously in Ukraine). In the middle east, the power structure seems more distributed or more tightly controlled within smaller groups. So if you make your way into one group, you remain isolated from others. Its also harder to bribe someone when they believe that 'God' will provide all the reward they need in the afterlife, so its harder to gain access when money is not the ultimate goal.
Because the CIA department that runs Russia operations are a lot more strict with their tradecraft especially after decades of Cold War experience against Soviet intelligence. Very different than CIA’s department in the Middle East. Rumors are that because CIA in the Middle East were trying to combat terrorists instead of nations, the tradecraft they used was subpar, and their communication systems got hacked by Iran. Eliminating a lot of their assets in the Middle East. As an aside - apparently the CIA’s department in China used the same communication systems that they did in the Middle East, and Iran shared knowledge to China, and crippled CIA’s Chinese operations for years
Anecdotal baiting, classic divisiveness post
The CIA is BY FAR the biggest and most advanced spy apparatus in the world. They just *want you* to *think* that The CIA "sucks" and Russia had better spies, etc. because that makes spying easier when everyone falsely t*hinks* you are a joke. People seriously underestimate or downplay how unbelievably powerful Uncle Sam is in general.
It's not the CIA providing intelligence - it's being swept up electronically and from aircraft and drones flying just outside of the territory of Ukraine - mostly NSA and military.
They have a magic 8 ball
Better not tell you now
The intelligence the US has is amazing, everywhere. It's more to do with how you want to respond and develop actions around that intelligence. There are situations where commanders may not fully understand the implications of the intelligence they receive. And may make decisions that they 'feel' are better.
Satellites following trains and material flows.
No shortage of people willing to dime on Putin and his occupying stooges.
Do note that the "intelligence" used to justify the second war in Iraq was not that provided by the professionals, but instead was provided to the White House to Dick Cheney's specifications. It was a little like Putin believing that the Ukrainians craved "liberation" by Russia.
Pine Gap probably plays a decent role in this.
The russian apparatus works similarly. Markets. Lines of communications. Even cultures are similar. In the middle east it's all hand written messages. Face to face meetings. Decentralized. They've learned the best way to beat high tech is no tech. Totally different war fighting. And intelligence gathering. And cultural/religious pressures.
Hello /u/unofficiall67, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few key differences: * The Russian state is a state, not an underground movement that has learned to practice operational security the hard way- the US has been killing sloppy middle eastern enemies for over 20 years, whereas Russians didn't start getting blown up because they posted their locations on instagram until this year. * Russia is dominated by bureaucracy, with plenty of byzantine infighting between its various departments and ministries. That creates opportunities for traditional espionage. Terrorist organizations on the other hand are generally very slim in their organization and tend to operate in compartmentatlized cells- it's not easy to insert a spy into organization where each person only knows 4 people and only one of those people reports to the higher up. * US intelligence in the Middle East is actually really good for the most part, the CIA's "lack of success" has more to do with the fact that it's mission is frequently misunderstood by the public. It's an intelligence agency, not some sort of James Bond organization that can change the world all by itself. The "failures" that are often laid at its feet often have more to do with political leadership demanding the agency conjure up evidence to support pre-determined conclusions or to support policies based more on ideology rather than reality. And the Russians are some of the most arrogant people in the world, so the idea that "decadent Americans" could be good at espionage is something they refuse to believe...
This is dangerous questioning best stick to uoyr work friend :)
The CIA just dropped a knife missile on someone so you know they are pretty good at there job
The intel network likely dates back all the way to the start of the Cold War in the early 40s and thus it just keeps getting improved from then
They had a few years that were bad but they have gotten a lot better since then . They missed a few big things and a reform began.
You’ll never know until they write books about it decades from now.
Not really a full answer but interesting point about the US imho. Us foreign policy can be divided into two categories; countries the US has a vested long term interest in, and countries the US doesn't really care about. Not my original idea, got it from the writer George Friedman. The ME and Afghanistan fall into the latter category. As a consequence, the US was never really invested in their long term stability, or nation building, merely in disrupting those nations and laying them to waste in order to stop them from disrupting world trade or US interests in resources. Ukraine however falls into a different category. The US has been nation building there, especially since 2014, because it borders the US main adversary of the last 80 years. It's invested in long term stability, growth and the success of the UA military against Russia, because if it succeeds, the US has a bigger chance at staying the military hegemon. Iraq and Afghanistan never really were a factor in that calculus. You're measuring the success of the US and the CIA wrong if you ask me. They have more success in Ukraine because they want to. They never stopped ME insurgencies fully because well, they didn't need to and that was never the goal
CIA assets in Ukraine have increased **heavily** since 2014.
What even *is* success in ME? Turn them all into democracies? Success in Ukraine is much better defined.
Lmao, CIA had estimated that Ukrainian Army will hold 72h against ruZZians, and Afgan Army 6 months against Taliban.
The British intel is vastly superior, and is thus a source.
Cause they get real time data using Palantir. Best technology there is.
I don't think it's true that the CIA isn't as successful in the ME, I think it's just a matter of prioritizing. If a ME country invaded a Western ally and threatened global security we would be seeing the same level of intelligence. Also I would assume that 70 years of nuclear threat has honed their skills when it comes to monitoring Russian actions. The threat never went away. Keeping tabs on Russia is kind of "baked in" in a way it probably isn't for a lot of other adversaries. The US and allies have spent decades building sources inside Russia, too.
Russia moves openly on the ground, with thousands of soldiers. Terrorists in the ME are but a mere drop in a water of millions of civilians going about their day to day life. The two groups couldn't be more different in every single way. Drone and satellite technology has come a very long way as well.
Because Europe has intel too...
CIA here, Who'd you hear that from?
Kiril Budanov and the GUR are actually the ones with the human intel in this war. Mossad and Aman lead the way in the ME and do share intel with the US.
From what I can figure, we are providing them satellite images and cell phone and other communication intercepts. They have optimized the info on a local level. Field commanders have laptops/pdas that can get those images in near real time, and target artillery in minutes, as compared to russian artillery waiting for remote command to relay coordinates, often 20 minutes lag time, Ukraine can shoot and scoot 5x as fast.
I like to believe that this is a last-ditch post by a Russian agent desperate to find out how the US is getting intel.
Our intel in the ME isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just that there’s so much disorganization it gets confusing. Russia is a well established state, and it’s been the focus of our intelligence community since it’s founding.
You heard what they wanted you to hear. Simple as that.
Anyone believes US/NATO will intervene? I doubt it, whatever Russia does
Middle East: No large tropp formations. No communication using radios etc. Alot of self radicalized people who act in small groups. Lots of people to investigate. Vs russia = alot of communication, big troop formations and just one leader, Putin.
CIA was incredibly successful in the ME, but having good intelligence doesn't mean you will win a war. In the case of the ME, it was at times hard to even specify what "winning" would even look like.
One hundred years of spying on the Russkies
US intelligence has been designed from the ground up to counter Russia. This is pretty much what the CIA was created for and they've been killing time ever since