[Leftcoast]

I suspect we underestimate the nationalism of average Russian citizens.  

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.

The EU and western approach to Russia has been to increase financial and cultural partnerships with the belief that nations do not go to war with their biggest trading partner and people they think of as "like them".  We're seeing that this approach doesn't penetrate much beyond the elite business classes.

I suppose the classic counter example to the "increased partnership" approach is WW1 where Germany, France, and Britain, all with strong cultural and business ties,  found themselves separated by trenches and mechanized warfare for 4 years.   The many places it HAS worked such as post-war Japan, East/West Germany reunion, and 1980s-2005 China, are numerous but not the rule.  And China shows even a strong 25 year history that benefited everyone isn't permanent.

[Leftcoast]

I suspect we underestimate the nationalism of average Russian citizens.  

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.

The EU and western approach to Russia has been to increase financial and cultural partnerships with the belief that nations do not go to war with their biggest trading partner and people they think of as "like them".  We're seeing that this approach doesn't penetrate much beyond the elite business classes.

I suppose the classic counter example to the "increased partnership" approach is WW1 where Germany, France, and Britain, all with strong cultural and business ties,  found themselves separated by trenches and mechanized warfare for 4 years.   The many places it HAS worked such as post-war Japan, East/West Germany reunion, and 1980s-2005 China, are numerous but not the rule.  And China shows even a strong 25 year history that benefited everyone isn't permanent.

[TrumpCard]

I suspect we underestimate the nationalism of average Russian citizens.  

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.

You could say this about my knowledge of the average American.  I probably learned most of what I know about the political views of the average Russian from Borat (even though that's a parody about a Khazak man played by a British Jew).  All I know is that the statement I linked from Russian state controlled TV is scary as hell, and Ukrainians are not going to take well to it.

[TrumpCard]

I suspect we underestimate the nationalism of average Russian citizens.  

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.

You could say this about my knowledge of the average American.  I probably learned most of what I know about the political views of the average Russian from Borat (even though that's a parody about a Khazak man played by a British Jew).  All I know is that the statement I linked from Russian state controlled TV is scary as hell, and Ukrainians are not going to take well to it.

[Goose]

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.


The EU and western approach to Russia has been to increase financial and cultural partnerships with the belief that nations do not go to war with their biggest trading partner and people they think of as "like them".  We're seeing that this approach doesn't penetrate much beyond the elite business classes.

It doesn't penetrate there either nearly as much as the Ostpolitik" folks would like us to believe IMHO. The Russian elites are in fact not at all like us. They live in a kleptocracy where Putin and other "people of influence" can squash them like bugs without consequences. Their entire historical frame of reference going back centuries is totally unlike the US and European one. In Russia, it is never fair, it is never just, and you don't expect it to be. Whether that is good or bad, doesn't matter. There is nothing you can do about it. It is always like that. The alternative is the chaos of the early 90s. The elites certainly don't want that, and in the main the average Russian doesn't either. After all, Putin did "bring a certain order". For most Russians, that is all one can hope for. That is why they accept all this, because they think they have little choice. And as long as they believe that, they are correct.

[Goose]

Our, or at least my, main exposure to Russian citizens is framed by a very unrepresentative urban elite with access to international business and travel.  That's not the average Russian.  Outside of Moscow, St Petersburgh (combined population 18m) and a few others (and only a small subset of the folks living there) we have very little insight into how Russian citizens view the West.  My guess is it's not good.


The EU and western approach to Russia has been to increase financial and cultural partnerships with the belief that nations do not go to war with their biggest trading partner and people they think of as "like them".  We're seeing that this approach doesn't penetrate much beyond the elite business classes.

It doesn't penetrate there either nearly as much as the Ostpolitik" folks would like us to believe IMHO. The Russian elites are in fact not at all like us. They live in a kleptocracy where Putin and other "people of influence" can squash them like bugs without consequences. Their entire historical frame of reference going back centuries is totally unlike the US and European one. In Russia, it is never fair, it is never just, and you don't expect it to be. Whether that is good or bad, doesn't matter. There is nothing you can do about it. It is always like that. The alternative is the chaos of the early 90s. The elites certainly don't want that, and in the main the average Russian doesn't either. After all, Putin did "bring a certain order". For most Russians, that is all one can hope for. That is why they accept all this, because they think they have little choice. And as long as they believe that, they are correct.

[Goose]

I thought the picture in this article may give people an idea what the railway substations look like. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-says...32440.html. I can't really say if this one is salvageable or not. Much of the damage appears to be superficial. The tubing is for heat dissipation, so it needs to be fixed. However, if that is all they need to do it may be easily repaired.

It is apparent that Russia is finally going after the rail transport system in a serious way using cruise missiles. This is the kind of thing that should have taken about two days, maybe a week at most, to accomplish early on. Ukraine and the West are claiming it is having "no effect" on weapons distribution. That latter statement I doubt. How much effect it is having is obviously hard to say given that we have no real data and it is not in Ukraine's interest to assist Russia in BDA. If the bridges are still up, Ukraine probably has enough diesel locomotives available to maintain weapons distribution across the country even with significant substation damage. Civilian rail transport is another matter.

Recent article on the Russian "strategy" against the railroads. Interesting IMHO. https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-war-b...19713.html

[Goose]

I thought the picture in this article may give people an idea what the railway substations look like. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-says...32440.html. I can't really say if this one is salvageable or not. Much of the damage appears to be superficial. The tubing is for heat dissipation, so it needs to be fixed. However, if that is all they need to do it may be easily repaired.

It is apparent that Russia is finally going after the rail transport system in a serious way using cruise missiles. This is the kind of thing that should have taken about two days, maybe a week at most, to accomplish early on. Ukraine and the West are claiming it is having "no effect" on weapons distribution. That latter statement I doubt. How much effect it is having is obviously hard to say given that we have no real data and it is not in Ukraine's interest to assist Russia in BDA. If the bridges are still up, Ukraine probably has enough diesel locomotives available to maintain weapons distribution across the country even with significant substation damage. Civilian rail transport is another matter.

Recent article on the Russian "strategy" against the railroads. Interesting IMHO. https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-war-b...19713.html

[dabigv13]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nationa...-rcna27559

The attack happened after Ukrainian forces asked the Americans about a ship sailing in the Black Sea south of Odesa, U.S. officials told NBC News. The U.S. identified it as the Moskva, officials said, and helped confirm its location, after which the Ukrainians targeted the ship.

The U.S. did not know in advance that Ukraine was going to target the Moskva, officials said, and was not involved in the decision to strike.

LOL.

Some relevant memes.....

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/KampfmitKette/status/1522309772535549952?s=20&t=1sE2YVZ2bdOPaelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Kama_Kamilia/status/...aelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Guardian_Mario/status/1522148463357612032?s=20&t=1sE2YVZ2bdOPaelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

More on Moskva sinking -

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship...ysis-shows

The review of images following the strike of the two Neptune anti-ship missiles from open-source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News that the guided-missile cruiser did not have its radars activated and could not see the threat from the two weapons.

In the photo of Moskva after the strike, the radars “are in their normal stowed position,” Carlson told USNI News on Monday.

“If you look at the pictures of Moskva, when she’s just dancing around going from place to place, or she’s anchored as a showboat, those directors are all facing aft every time,” he said.

[dabigv13]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nationa...-rcna27559

The attack happened after Ukrainian forces asked the Americans about a ship sailing in the Black Sea south of Odesa, U.S. officials told NBC News. The U.S. identified it as the Moskva, officials said, and helped confirm its location, after which the Ukrainians targeted the ship.

The U.S. did not know in advance that Ukraine was going to target the Moskva, officials said, and was not involved in the decision to strike.

LOL.

Some relevant memes.....

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/KampfmitKette/status/1522309772535549952?s=20&t=1sE2YVZ2bdOPaelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Kama_Kamilia/status/...aelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Guardian_Mario/status/1522148463357612032?s=20&t=1sE2YVZ2bdOPaelDcAZ1iw[/tweet]

More on Moskva sinking -

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship...ysis-shows

The review of images following the strike of the two Neptune anti-ship missiles from open-source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News that the guided-missile cruiser did not have its radars activated and could not see the threat from the two weapons.

In the photo of Moskva after the strike, the radars “are in their normal stowed position,” Carlson told USNI News on Monday.

“If you look at the pictures of Moskva, when she’s just dancing around going from place to place, or she’s anchored as a showboat, those directors are all facing aft every time,” he said.

[Goose]

More on Moskva sinking -

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship...ysis-shows

The review of images following the strike of the two Neptune anti-ship missiles from open-source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News that the guided-missile cruiser did not have its radars activated and could not see the threat from the two weapons.




In the photo of Moskva after the strike, the radars “are in their normal stowed position,” Carlson told USNI News on Monday.




“If you look at the pictures of Moskva, when she’s just dancing around going from place to place, or she’s anchored as a showboat, those directors are all facing aft every time,” he said.

I hate to do this, but the article has several significant errors. If it ever shows up in Proceedings I am pretty sure it will be cleaned up. The statement the ship did not have it's radars operating is not supported by what is shown. What is true is that neither the Pop Group nor the Top Dome radars were attempting to track targets arriving from the port side of the ship. However, these are both fire control radars and do not attempt to track targets unless tasked to do so. That tasking normally comes from the air search radar, which on the Moskva would be a Top Pair or Top Steer. It is impossible from the picture to know if these radars were spinning at the time of the attack and even more impossible to know if these radars were emitting at that time. In times past Russian ships would operate in EMCON much more commonly that US ships do, but under the circumstances I would be amazed if both 3D air search radars were not operating. Possible, but unknowable from the pictures.

It is true that apparently neither the Pop Group or the Top Dome radars were tasked to provide fire control for a defensive missile. The Top Dome probably would not be used against a sea skimming missile in any case. It controls the S-300 missiles, which are oriented to more distant targets. It is doubtful they are even capable of maneuvering as required to hit a sea skimmer that is close aboard. The Pop Group controls SA-N-4 Gecko missiles, which would be the "weapon of choice". Either the inbound missiles were not detected by the air search radar or the CIC people did not designate and assign the inbound targets to a defensive weapons system. With a sea skimmer you don't have a lot of time to act, so poor training or bad doctrine could produce this result. We don't know at this point. There is also a slight chance that the CIC elected to engage the missiles only with the AK-630 weapons system, which is similar to the US CIWS. It uses a Bass Tilt fire control radar which we don't see either. This is an "automatic" system but due to false alarms it is not normally enabled. Maybe they detected a target and forgot to enable it. If they did detect an inbound sea skimmer enabling the CIWS to engage automatically is a pretty standard practice even if you are going to engage it with another weapon. What if you miss?

The second set of statements that I know for a fact are false is that you can't fire a harpoon missile using a position that is passed over a voice circuit. You most certainly can. It may be that the Captain has only had the experience of firing it via a data link, but that is by no means the only way to get target coordinates. These coordinates are only somewhat approximate anyway. The target will not be at that posit when the missile arrives. The missile has to acquire the target itself in all cases. I am virtually certain that a land based anti-ship missile in Ukraine can receive target positions in several ways. This is not to say I believe the P-8 passed such coordinates to the Ukrainians. I strongly suspect they didn't. But they could have.

[Goose]

More on Moskva sinking -

https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/warship...ysis-shows

The review of images following the strike of the two Neptune anti-ship missiles from open-source naval analyst and retired Navy Capt. Chris Carlson told USNI News that the guided-missile cruiser did not have its radars activated and could not see the threat from the two weapons.




In the photo of Moskva after the strike, the radars “are in their normal stowed position,” Carlson told USNI News on Monday.




“If you look at the pictures of Moskva, when she’s just dancing around going from place to place, or she’s anchored as a showboat, those directors are all facing aft every time,” he said.

I hate to do this, but the article has several significant errors. If it ever shows up in Proceedings I am pretty sure it will be cleaned up. The statement the ship did not have it's radars operating is not supported by what is shown. What is true is that neither the Pop Group nor the Top Dome radars were attempting to track targets arriving from the port side of the ship. However, these are both fire control radars and do not attempt to track targets unless tasked to do so. That tasking normally comes from the air search radar, which on the Moskva would be a Top Pair or Top Steer. It is impossible from the picture to know if these radars were spinning at the time of the attack and even more impossible to know if these radars were emitting at that time. In times past Russian ships would operate in EMCON much more commonly that US ships do, but under the circumstances I would be amazed if both 3D air search radars were not operating. Possible, but unknowable from the pictures.

It is true that apparently neither the Pop Group or the Top Dome radars were tasked to provide fire control for a defensive missile. The Top Dome probably would not be used against a sea skimming missile in any case. It controls the S-300 missiles, which are oriented to more distant targets. It is doubtful they are even capable of maneuvering as required to hit a sea skimmer that is close aboard. The Pop Group controls SA-N-4 Gecko missiles, which would be the "weapon of choice". Either the inbound missiles were not detected by the air search radar or the CIC people did not designate and assign the inbound targets to a defensive weapons system. With a sea skimmer you don't have a lot of time to act, so poor training or bad doctrine could produce this result. We don't know at this point. There is also a slight chance that the CIC elected to engage the missiles only with the AK-630 weapons system, which is similar to the US CIWS. It uses a Bass Tilt fire control radar which we don't see either. This is an "automatic" system but due to false alarms it is not normally enabled. Maybe they detected a target and forgot to enable it. If they did detect an inbound sea skimmer enabling the CIWS to engage automatically is a pretty standard practice even if you are going to engage it with another weapon. What if you miss?

The second set of statements that I know for a fact are false is that you can't fire a harpoon missile using a position that is passed over a voice circuit. You most certainly can. It may be that the Captain has only had the experience of firing it via a data link, but that is by no means the only way to get target coordinates. These coordinates are only somewhat approximate anyway. The target will not be at that posit when the missile arrives. The missile has to acquire the target itself in all cases. I am virtually certain that a land based anti-ship missile in Ukraine can receive target positions in several ways. This is not to say I believe the P-8 passed such coordinates to the Ukrainians. I strongly suspect they didn't. But they could have.

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

[OutsiderFan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

Who believes Russia didn't already know the U.S. provided help to Ukraine that led to the ship sinking?  IOW, I don't think this reporting is news to Moscow. We have to remember that there is an ongoing information war as well. It seems whatever is being told to WaPo reporter is being done with a specific objective in mind that aids Ukraine and the western alliance.

I read some analyst suggest this kind of intel reveal is designed to feed Russian paranoia. Given so many Russian buildings can't keep from catching on fire lately, there may be some truth to the notion. The military has to be suspecting that anyone in its ranks might be a traitor the more the western allies make clear they know about and can reach inside Russia.

Anyway, Ukraine apparently sunk another Russian ship today.

[OutsiderFan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

Who believes Russia didn't already know the U.S. provided help to Ukraine that led to the ship sinking?  IOW, I don't think this reporting is news to Moscow. We have to remember that there is an ongoing information war as well. It seems whatever is being told to WaPo reporter is being done with a specific objective in mind that aids Ukraine and the western alliance.

I read some analyst suggest this kind of intel reveal is designed to feed Russian paranoia. Given so many Russian buildings can't keep from catching on fire lately, there may be some truth to the notion. The military has to be suspecting that anyone in its ranks might be a traitor the more the western allies make clear they know about and can reach inside Russia.

Anyway, Ukraine apparently sunk another Russian ship today.

[Goose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

It is not news to the Russians that the US locates (or tries real hard to) Russian warships in the Black Sea using national technical means on a near real time basis. Supposedly the Ukrainians asked the ident of a target at a certain lat-long and we gave it to them. There are no surprises there. As other articles have pointed out as well, the Ukrainians undoubtedly possess HUMINT sources in the Russian infrastructure that can provide lots of data about lots of things. Based on the number of spies the Ukraine has busted in this war, visa-versa is also true. Equally importantly, GCHQ and the BND have extensive efforts in that part of Eastern Europe. I suspect both of these agencies make a substantial contribution to the overall NATO intelligence assessment and that some of that is given to the Ukrainians.

However, the location of Russian general officers in near real time is undoubtedly determined by communication security breaches and Ukrainian HUMINT. Ukraine has shown they have a significant effort and capability in using Russian communications insecurity with no help from anybody. To what extent, if any, they get near real time help from anybody else in this area is unclear.

If one wants to worry about anything I would worry more about the administration's apparent willingness to publicize anything at all about our intelligence relationship with the Ukraine. There is no doubt this information was "shared" for PR purposes to reassure the public that we were actually doing something in this area. The fact it got printed was both expected and desired. The Russians probably already know what we are doing and not doing, so no real damage there. However, it is never wise to simplify the Russian assessment problem by confirming or denying anything. Doing so may remove existing doubts that Russia has about how Ukraine knows certain things. OTOH, it may be that this whole story is disinformation to cover up the fact Ukraine gets the data another way. Wheels within wheels.

[Goose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

It is not news to the Russians that the US locates (or tries real hard to) Russian warships in the Black Sea using national technical means on a near real time basis. Supposedly the Ukrainians asked the ident of a target at a certain lat-long and we gave it to them. There are no surprises there. As other articles have pointed out as well, the Ukrainians undoubtedly possess HUMINT sources in the Russian infrastructure that can provide lots of data about lots of things. Based on the number of spies the Ukraine has busted in this war, visa-versa is also true. Equally importantly, GCHQ and the BND have extensive efforts in that part of Eastern Europe. I suspect both of these agencies make a substantial contribution to the overall NATO intelligence assessment and that some of that is given to the Ukrainians.

However, the location of Russian general officers in near real time is undoubtedly determined by communication security breaches and Ukrainian HUMINT. Ukraine has shown they have a significant effort and capability in using Russian communications insecurity with no help from anybody. To what extent, if any, they get near real time help from anybody else in this area is unclear.

If one wants to worry about anything I would worry more about the administration's apparent willingness to publicize anything at all about our intelligence relationship with the Ukraine. There is no doubt this information was "shared" for PR purposes to reassure the public that we were actually doing something in this area. The fact it got printed was both expected and desired. The Russians probably already know what we are doing and not doing, so no real damage there. However, it is never wise to simplify the Russian assessment problem by confirming or denying anything. Doing so may remove existing doubts that Russia has about how Ukraine knows certain things. OTOH, it may be that this whole story is disinformation to cover up the fact Ukraine gets the data another way. Wheels within wheels.

[dabigv13]

NBC, WaPo, NYT all had stories on this within an hour or two of each other. These aren't unauthorized leaks. Biden wants Russia and the world to know that we are behind Ukraine all the way up to the limit of US troops on the ground.

Russia undoubtedly knows that the US is supplying Intel to the Ukrainians and have known this probably for a while. Biden wants them to know, that we want them to know.

This Intel forward strategy probably helped consolidate support for Ukraine and the US position on supplying Ukraine with weapons as soon as Russia did invade, on the day the German (foreign? Intel?) minister was in Kiev. And it may have helped head off Russian chemical weapons use. I think Russia is used to dictating the information space and now they aren't, and that has thrown a spanner in the works.

....


Lots of smoke online and from Ukraine that they've hit another Russian warship with a Neptune, the very new frigate Admiral Makarov. I suspect we will know one way or another soon enough.

[dabigv13]

NBC, WaPo, NYT all had stories on this within an hour or two of each other. These aren't unauthorized leaks. Biden wants Russia and the world to know that we are behind Ukraine all the way up to the limit of US troops on the ground.

Russia undoubtedly knows that the US is supplying Intel to the Ukrainians and have known this probably for a while. Biden wants them to know, that we want them to know.

This Intel forward strategy probably helped consolidate support for Ukraine and the US position on supplying Ukraine with weapons as soon as Russia did invade, on the day the German (foreign? Intel?) minister was in Kiev. And it may have helped head off Russian chemical weapons use. I think Russia is used to dictating the information space and now they aren't, and that has thrown a spanner in the works.

....


Lots of smoke online and from Ukraine that they've hit another Russian warship with a Neptune, the very new frigate Admiral Makarov. I suspect we will know one way or another soon enough.

[Goose]

NBC, WaPo, NYT all had stories on this within an hour or two of each other. These aren't unauthorized leaks. Biden wants Russia and the world to know that we are behind Ukraine all the way up to the limit of US troops on the ground.

Or, alternatively he wanted the public to know this so that they would get off the administration's case about not doing so. This is the possibility I don't much like.

Russia undoubtedly knows that the US is supplying Intel to the Ukrainians and have known this probably for a while.

True.

Biden wants them to know, that we want them to know.

Or, more probably IMHO, Biden et al want the good publicity in the USA.

This Intel forward strategy probably helped consolidate support for Ukraine and the US position on supplying Ukraine with weapons as soon as Russia did invade, on the day the German (foreign? Intel?) minister was in Kiev. And it may have helped head off Russian chemical weapons use. I think Russia is used to dictating the information space and now they aren't, and that has thrown a spanner in the works.

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean the Biden administration letting the world know that Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine, it is unclear to me that "Intel forward" had much to do with that. It was obvious to everybody involved that Russia was building up the capability to invade. Forces were moved over a period of months. The existence of this capability was no Intel feat, but it undoubtedly led to planning for that eventuality. That was a very good thing which probably did have some of the results you outline, but the buildup was hardly a secret.

Intelligence is often wrapped up in assessment of capability vs intention. Capability may be difficult to measure exactly but in this case the existence of substantial capability was undeniable. The fact that Putin actually intended to do it (intention) was IMHO a lucky (and conservative) guess. That fact was so closely held that probably only Putin knew what he was actually going to do. If the US actually had any real data to that effect, I would be very, very impressed.

[Goose]

NBC, WaPo, NYT all had stories on this within an hour or two of each other. These aren't unauthorized leaks. Biden wants Russia and the world to know that we are behind Ukraine all the way up to the limit of US troops on the ground.

Or, alternatively he wanted the public to know this so that they would get off the administration's case about not doing so. This is the possibility I don't much like.

Russia undoubtedly knows that the US is supplying Intel to the Ukrainians and have known this probably for a while.

True.

Biden wants them to know, that we want them to know.

Or, more probably IMHO, Biden et al want the good publicity in the USA.

This Intel forward strategy probably helped consolidate support for Ukraine and the US position on supplying Ukraine with weapons as soon as Russia did invade, on the day the German (foreign? Intel?) minister was in Kiev. And it may have helped head off Russian chemical weapons use. I think Russia is used to dictating the information space and now they aren't, and that has thrown a spanner in the works.

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean the Biden administration letting the world know that Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine, it is unclear to me that "Intel forward" had much to do with that. It was obvious to everybody involved that Russia was building up the capability to invade. Forces were moved over a period of months. The existence of this capability was no Intel feat, but it undoubtedly led to planning for that eventuality. That was a very good thing which probably did have some of the results you outline, but the buildup was hardly a secret.

Intelligence is often wrapped up in assessment of capability vs intention. Capability may be difficult to measure exactly but in this case the existence of substantial capability was undeniable. The fact that Putin actually intended to do it (intention) was IMHO a lucky (and conservative) guess. That fact was so closely held that probably only Putin knew what he was actually going to do. If the US actually had any real data to that effect, I would be very, very impressed.

[Treefence]

Ukrainians announced they regained control of more settlements north east of Kharkiv, it seems they've pushed Russians out of artillery range on the city, and are getting closer to clearing the entire region and pushing Russians back across the border in that area.  There have also been rumblings of a missile hitting the admiral Makorov, a Russian frigate.  Doesn't seem to have the same trends as the Moskwa, probably didn't sink, but possibly out of commission.  It looks like there is potentially a faked photo showing the fire onboard soon after the hit.  Might be a little while before we know more, unless Russians announce another "accident."

[Treefence]

Ukrainians announced they regained control of more settlements north east of Kharkiv, it seems they've pushed Russians out of artillery range on the city, and are getting closer to clearing the entire region and pushing Russians back across the border in that area.  There have also been rumblings of a missile hitting the admiral Makorov, a Russian frigate.  Doesn't seem to have the same trends as the Moskwa, probably didn't sink, but possibly out of commission.  It looks like there is potentially a faked photo showing the fire onboard soon after the hit.  Might be a little while before we know more, unless Russians announce another "accident."

[dabigv13]

The US and UK were loudly telling the world that there is going to be an invasion. Europe was saying nah, probably just a scare tactic or exercise.

When we were proved right, that helped our credibility and helped get the rest of NATO on board with supporting Ukraine as strongly as the US and UK have pushed for.

A good article on this-

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/05/06/br...embership/

The reports all include details that explain where the US is involved — intelligence sharing — and where it is not — targeting decisions. I noted after the sinking of the Moskva that Ukraine accomplished that feat using Ukrainian weapons assisted by Turkish drones, not weapons supplied by the US or UK. By leaking details of the US involvement in Ukraine’s military success, the US is also making public details about where it is not involved, which extends to the implementation of the most controversial strikes. The US is making the limits of its engagement public, which actually could help avoid escalation (and, if critics were more honest than they are, entails giving Ukraine full credit for the tremendous success it is having).

This is why I doubt very much these are unauthorized leaks. They all set the boundaries of what US has been doing.

I think those complaining are ignoring a number of obvious benefits of declassifying this information. First, releasing this information promises to exacerbate three problems that have already badly harmed Russia’s war effort: Putin’s isolation and with it, bad decision-making on his part, poor command structure within the Russian military, and snowballing paranoia in the Russian security community and with it a collapse of morale.

But Russia is likely not the only audience for these leaks. Existing and aspiring NATO members, including the voters within those countries, likely are also the intended audience.

What is being portrayed as dick-wagging offers a number of advantages in this climate. Without exposing sources and methods, it demonstrates that American sources and methods that come with NATO membership are excellent — far better than what Russia could offer (say) Hungary or Moldova, or even Saudi Arabia, right now. By emphasizing the way that the US has offered intelligence but not taken over targeting decisions, the US makes it clear that one can remain sovereign even while benefitting from the advantages NATO offers. The stories make it clear that the superior intelligence accessible with NATO membership can help a vastly overmatched country defend itself against an invader.

[dabigv13]

The US and UK were loudly telling the world that there is going to be an invasion. Europe was saying nah, probably just a scare tactic or exercise.

When we were proved right, that helped our credibility and helped get the rest of NATO on board with supporting Ukraine as strongly as the US and UK have pushed for.

A good article on this-

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/05/06/br...embership/

The reports all include details that explain where the US is involved — intelligence sharing — and where it is not — targeting decisions. I noted after the sinking of the Moskva that Ukraine accomplished that feat using Ukrainian weapons assisted by Turkish drones, not weapons supplied by the US or UK. By leaking details of the US involvement in Ukraine’s military success, the US is also making public details about where it is not involved, which extends to the implementation of the most controversial strikes. The US is making the limits of its engagement public, which actually could help avoid escalation (and, if critics were more honest than they are, entails giving Ukraine full credit for the tremendous success it is having).

This is why I doubt very much these are unauthorized leaks. They all set the boundaries of what US has been doing.

I think those complaining are ignoring a number of obvious benefits of declassifying this information. First, releasing this information promises to exacerbate three problems that have already badly harmed Russia’s war effort: Putin’s isolation and with it, bad decision-making on his part, poor command structure within the Russian military, and snowballing paranoia in the Russian security community and with it a collapse of morale.

But Russia is likely not the only audience for these leaks. Existing and aspiring NATO members, including the voters within those countries, likely are also the intended audience.

What is being portrayed as dick-wagging offers a number of advantages in this climate. Without exposing sources and methods, it demonstrates that American sources and methods that come with NATO membership are excellent — far better than what Russia could offer (say) Hungary or Moldova, or even Saudi Arabia, right now. By emphasizing the way that the US has offered intelligence but not taken over targeting decisions, the US makes it clear that one can remain sovereign even while benefitting from the advantages NATO offers. The stories make it clear that the superior intelligence accessible with NATO membership can help a vastly overmatched country defend itself against an invader.

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

It is not news to the Russians that the US locates (or tries real hard to) Russian warships in the Black Sea using national technical means on a near real time basis. Supposedly the Ukrainians asked the ident of a target at a certain lat-long and we gave it to them. There are no surprises there. As other articles have pointed out as well, the Ukrainians undoubtedly possess HUMINT sources in the Russian infrastructure that can provide lots of data about lots of things. Based on the number of spies the Ukraine has busted in this war, visa-versa is also true. Equally importantly, GCHQ and the BND have extensive efforts in that part of Eastern Europe. I suspect both of these agencies make a substantial contribution to the overall NATO intelligence assessment and that some of that is given to the Ukrainians.

However, the location of Russian general officers in near real time is undoubtedly determined by communication security breaches and Ukrainian HUMINT. Ukraine has shown they have a significant effort and capability in using Russian communications insecurity with no help from anybody. To what extent, if any, they get near real time help from anybody else in this area is unclear.

If one wants to worry about anything I would worry more about the administration's apparent willingness to publicize anything at all about our intelligence relationship with the Ukraine. There is no doubt this information was "shared" for PR purposes to reassure the public that we were actually doing something in this area. The fact it got printed was both expected and desired. The Russians probably already know what we are doing and not doing, so no real damage there. However, it is never wise to simplify the Russian assessment problem by confirming or denying anything. Doing so may remove existing doubts that Russia has about how Ukraine knows certain things. OTOH, it may be that this whole story is disinformation to cover up the fact Ukraine gets the data another way. Wheels within wheels.

The thought that it's an authorized leak is hardly reassuring. I'm reminded of all the crowing that the Obama Administration did about the OBL operation, which resulted in a Pakistani physician, a friend of the US, ending up in prison.

Biden's political problems are beyond the scope of this line and likely verboten. But they are not going to be solved by anything that happens in the Ukraine

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a-sinking/

Anyone else bothered by this?

As has become the rule, not the exception, with mainstream news, it is unsourced. Quoting myself, when you read an unsourced news story, you are actually reading an unsigned op-ed. So why it appears in print in the first place is a question.

But more seriously, my suspicion is that this is a leak of classified material, that might compromise other intelligence operations and maybe endanger someone's life, if there is a humint source. For years, the major newspapers have treated the CIA and NSA as if they were the enemy - even when there's a real enemy, such as Russia or Al-Qaeda. Not good.

It is not news to the Russians that the US locates (or tries real hard to) Russian warships in the Black Sea using national technical means on a near real time basis. Supposedly the Ukrainians asked the ident of a target at a certain lat-long and we gave it to them. There are no surprises there. As other articles have pointed out as well, the Ukrainians undoubtedly possess HUMINT sources in the Russian infrastructure that can provide lots of data about lots of things. Based on the number of spies the Ukraine has busted in this war, visa-versa is also true. Equally importantly, GCHQ and the BND have extensive efforts in that part of Eastern Europe. I suspect both of these agencies make a substantial contribution to the overall NATO intelligence assessment and that some of that is given to the Ukrainians.

However, the location of Russian general officers in near real time is undoubtedly determined by communication security breaches and Ukrainian HUMINT. Ukraine has shown they have a significant effort and capability in using Russian communications insecurity with no help from anybody. To what extent, if any, they get near real time help from anybody else in this area is unclear.

If one wants to worry about anything I would worry more about the administration's apparent willingness to publicize anything at all about our intelligence relationship with the Ukraine. There is no doubt this information was "shared" for PR purposes to reassure the public that we were actually doing something in this area. The fact it got printed was both expected and desired. The Russians probably already know what we are doing and not doing, so no real damage there. However, it is never wise to simplify the Russian assessment problem by confirming or denying anything. Doing so may remove existing doubts that Russia has about how Ukraine knows certain things. OTOH, it may be that this whole story is disinformation to cover up the fact Ukraine gets the data another way. Wheels within wheels.

The thought that it's an authorized leak is hardly reassuring. I'm reminded of all the crowing that the Obama Administration did about the OBL operation, which resulted in a Pakistani physician, a friend of the US, ending up in prison.

Biden's political problems are beyond the scope of this line and likely verboten. But they are not going to be solved by anything that happens in the Ukraine

[Goose]

The thought that it's an authorized leak is hardly reassuring. I'm reminded of all the crowing that the Obama Administration did about the OBL operation, which resulted in a Pakistani physician, a friend of the US, ending up in prison.


Biden's political problems are beyond the scope of this line and likely verboten. But they are not going to be solved by anything that happens in the Ukraine

I am not "reassured" by it being an authorized leak either, but at least what was leaked is information the Russians probably believed anyway. Since the location of ships involves almost exclusively national technical means it is improbable any person will be "compromised". Generally, saying anything at all about intelligence capability is a bad idea. It is usually done for either domestic political reasons (always bad IMHO) or as a disinformation attack on the opponent.

---

The US and UK were loudly telling the world that there is going to be an invasion. Europe was saying nah, probably just a scare tactic or exercise.



When we were proved right, that helped our credibility and helped get the rest of NATO on board with supporting Ukraine as strongly as the US and UK have pushed for.




A good article on this-


https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/05/06/br...embership/

I think the article is very mistaken in some regards. As I pointed out before, the difference between capability and intention is important. The US and everybody else saw the Russian capability. You are making the argument that the fact the US was "right" about Russian intentions is going to impress other countries. It isn't, because they all know these two things. First, estimating any other countries intentions at best involves reading tea leaves, even in a transparent democracy like the USA. They aren't telling you in so many words what they are going to do and even if they are you may regard it as disinformation or saber rattling. In many cases, even your opponent doesn't "know" what he is going to do. It is a work in progress. Second, in Russia, what happens next depends pretty much totally on Vladimir Putin intentions, and no matter what Putin is saying to even his inner circle he can turn on a dime and do something else. The CIA has psychiatrists that try to figure out what foreign leaders are thinking. So do other nations. No sane person is going to build their strategy on what those psychiatrists say. Any projection of Putin's intentions is by definition a guess. We guessed right, but that isn't going to have any traction among professionals. They recognize the limits of such estimates and plan accordingly. This is an age-old truism that a nation ignores at their peril.

Ideally, you always plan to respond to your opponents capabilities, not his intentions. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know his capabilities exactly. Even more unfortunately it may be too expensive to totally defend against you opponent's capabilities. At that point, your assessment of your opponent's intentions may guide you in what you actually do. However, doing this is historically how you get beat. You have to make appropriate risk/benefit analysis based on how sure you are of the opponents intention and the risk of being wrong. In this case, the Biden administration had almost no risk involved in assuming the worst about Putin's intention because all we had to do was plan for how much help we would give Ukraine. As is evident by our constantly changing upward what we are willing to do that planning was clearly imperfect. It was however certainly superior to assuming Putin would not act and doing nothing.

[Goose]

The thought that it's an authorized leak is hardly reassuring. I'm reminded of all the crowing that the Obama Administration did about the OBL operation, which resulted in a Pakistani physician, a friend of the US, ending up in prison.


Biden's political problems are beyond the scope of this line and likely verboten. But they are not going to be solved by anything that happens in the Ukraine

I am not "reassured" by it being an authorized leak either, but at least what was leaked is information the Russians probably believed anyway. Since the location of ships involves almost exclusively national technical means it is improbable any person will be "compromised". Generally, saying anything at all about intelligence capability is a bad idea. It is usually done for either domestic political reasons (always bad IMHO) or as a disinformation attack on the opponent.

---

The US and UK were loudly telling the world that there is going to be an invasion. Europe was saying nah, probably just a scare tactic or exercise.



When we were proved right, that helped our credibility and helped get the rest of NATO on board with supporting Ukraine as strongly as the US and UK have pushed for.




A good article on this-


https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/05/06/br...embership/

I think the article is very mistaken in some regards. As I pointed out before, the difference between capability and intention is important. The US and everybody else saw the Russian capability. You are making the argument that the fact the US was "right" about Russian intentions is going to impress other countries. It isn't, because they all know these two things. First, estimating any other countries intentions at best involves reading tea leaves, even in a transparent democracy like the USA. They aren't telling you in so many words what they are going to do and even if they are you may regard it as disinformation or saber rattling. In many cases, even your opponent doesn't "know" what he is going to do. It is a work in progress. Second, in Russia, what happens next depends pretty much totally on Vladimir Putin intentions, and no matter what Putin is saying to even his inner circle he can turn on a dime and do something else. The CIA has psychiatrists that try to figure out what foreign leaders are thinking. So do other nations. No sane person is going to build their strategy on what those psychiatrists say. Any projection of Putin's intentions is by definition a guess. We guessed right, but that isn't going to have any traction among professionals. They recognize the limits of such estimates and plan accordingly. This is an age-old truism that a nation ignores at their peril.

Ideally, you always plan to respond to your opponents capabilities, not his intentions. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know his capabilities exactly. Even more unfortunately it may be too expensive to totally defend against you opponent's capabilities. At that point, your assessment of your opponent's intentions may guide you in what you actually do. However, doing this is historically how you get beat. You have to make appropriate risk/benefit analysis based on how sure you are of the opponents intention and the risk of being wrong. In this case, the Biden administration had almost no risk involved in assuming the worst about Putin's intention because all we had to do was plan for how much help we would give Ukraine. As is evident by our constantly changing upward what we are willing to do that planning was clearly imperfect. It was however certainly superior to assuming Putin would not act and doing nothing.

[dabigv13]

So the US just had a lucky hunch Russia was going to proceed. In any case, whether it was a lucky hunch or not (very much doubt it was), I think it helped.

Consider the counterfactual, does it help the US and Ukraine more for us to have said nothing in the lead up? Should we have not warned about possible chemical weapons usage?

I dont think it's a surprise to the Russians that the US is giving Intel to Ukraine, Russia doesn't need any more help to drive their rhetoric since their domestic audience is captive to lying state media anyway, and what has been disclosed doesn't sacrifice any human sources. So I only see upside.

[dabigv13]

So the US just had a lucky hunch Russia was going to proceed. In any case, whether it was a lucky hunch or not (very much doubt it was), I think it helped.

Consider the counterfactual, does it help the US and Ukraine more for us to have said nothing in the lead up? Should we have not warned about possible chemical weapons usage?

I dont think it's a surprise to the Russians that the US is giving Intel to Ukraine, Russia doesn't need any more help to drive their rhetoric since their domestic audience is captive to lying state media anyway, and what has been disclosed doesn't sacrifice any human sources. So I only see upside.

[Goose]

So the US just had a lucky hunch Russia was going to proceed. In any case, whether it was a lucky hunch or not (very much doubt it was), I think it helped.
Consider the counterfactual, does it help the US and Ukraine more for us to have said nothing in the lead up? Should we have not warned about possible chemical weapons usage?

Exactly!! It was by definition a "lucky hunch". Putin could have just done nothing. Even if we thought it probable his definite intention was to invade, he could have changed his mind for any reason or no reason. We did exactly what you suggest. We considered the counterfactual. It cost us little or nothing to say what we said and warn about chemical weapons. We also contacted Ukraine and established a way forward if Putin did move. If we were wrong, worst case it creates a "cry wolf" possibility next time. Not doing so risked a totally delayed response, too little and way too late. In fact, I would argue that even if on the balance we thought Putin WASN'T going to invade, we would/should have done exactly the same thing. Little risk, great benefit. It is always better to have a plan you don't need than to urgently need one you don't have.

Ukraine, FWIW, was saying that "The Russian's aren't coming". Did they actually believe that? IMHO, probably not. They just wanted to keep their economy from tanking any sooner than necessary. What nations say and what their intelligence assessment says are almost always at odds, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I don't think it's a surprise to the Russians that the US is giving Intel to Ukraine, Russia doesn't need any more help to drive their rhetoric since their domestic audience is captive to lying state media anyway, and what has been disclosed doesn't sacrifice any human sources. So I only see upside.

Agree no human sources at risk. Confirming that belief is still a bad idea though. In GRU headquarters there is always the nagging doubt "Does Ukraine have an active source inside Black Sea Fleet planning?". Mitigating that doubt is never a good thing, unless, of course, they do.

[Goose]

So the US just had a lucky hunch Russia was going to proceed. In any case, whether it was a lucky hunch or not (very much doubt it was), I think it helped.
Consider the counterfactual, does it help the US and Ukraine more for us to have said nothing in the lead up? Should we have not warned about possible chemical weapons usage?

Exactly!! It was by definition a "lucky hunch". Putin could have just done nothing. Even if we thought it probable his definite intention was to invade, he could have changed his mind for any reason or no reason. We did exactly what you suggest. We considered the counterfactual. It cost us little or nothing to say what we said and warn about chemical weapons. We also contacted Ukraine and established a way forward if Putin did move. If we were wrong, worst case it creates a "cry wolf" possibility next time. Not doing so risked a totally delayed response, too little and way too late. In fact, I would argue that even if on the balance we thought Putin WASN'T going to invade, we would/should have done exactly the same thing. Little risk, great benefit. It is always better to have a plan you don't need than to urgently need one you don't have.

Ukraine, FWIW, was saying that "The Russian's aren't coming". Did they actually believe that? IMHO, probably not. They just wanted to keep their economy from tanking any sooner than necessary. What nations say and what their intelligence assessment says are almost always at odds, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I don't think it's a surprise to the Russians that the US is giving Intel to Ukraine, Russia doesn't need any more help to drive their rhetoric since their domestic audience is captive to lying state media anyway, and what has been disclosed doesn't sacrifice any human sources. So I only see upside.

Agree no human sources at risk. Confirming that belief is still a bad idea though. In GRU headquarters there is always the nagging doubt "Does Ukraine have an active source inside Black Sea Fleet planning?". Mitigating that doubt is never a good thing, unless, of course, they do.

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/pevchikh/status/1522682826222706689[/tweet]

How long until the seized Russian assets are sold or scrapped for money to fund Ukraine? I know there are "legal" issues around how to do this, but I don't see how countries can't just declare Russia an enemy of the state and make it legal to seize, auction or liquidate assets from any citizen of that country.

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/pevchikh/status/1522682826222706689[/tweet]

How long until the seized Russian assets are sold or scrapped for money to fund Ukraine? I know there are "legal" issues around how to do this, but I don't see how countries can't just declare Russia an enemy of the state and make it legal to seize, auction or liquidate assets from any citizen of that country.

[BostonCard]

My guess is that the the US is slowly “boiling the frog” about its involvement in the war.  Had something like this been disclosed at the outset, Russia would have had a sh#rift about us directly helping a combatant. However, by slowly upping the ante, it makes it very difficult for Russia to respond, since we slowly push the “lines” out.  I think the goal is to expand the space for US intervention in the conflict.

At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is leaked out that we have “advisors” in Ukraine.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/pevchikh/status/1522682826222706689[/tweet]

How long until the seized Russian assets are sold or scrapped for money to fund Ukraine? I know there are "legal" issues around how to do this, but I don't see how countries can't just declare Russia an enemy of the state and make it legal to seize, auction or liquidate assets from any citizen of that country.

Well, I mean, the United States has property rights and due process enshrined in the fifth amendment of the US constitution.  And under international law, a foreign power’s property is immune from seizure, not that Russia seemed to give a lick about international law when, for example, it seized and annexed Crimea, let alone in this war.

I don’t think what you propose is possible under current understandings of US and international law, though interpretations can sometimes change under extreme circumstances.

BC

[BostonCard]

My guess is that the the US is slowly “boiling the frog” about its involvement in the war.  Had something like this been disclosed at the outset, Russia would have had a sh#rift about us directly helping a combatant. However, by slowly upping the ante, it makes it very difficult for Russia to respond, since we slowly push the “lines” out.  I think the goal is to expand the space for US intervention in the conflict.

At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is leaked out that we have “advisors” in Ukraine.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/pevchikh/status/1522682826222706689[/tweet]

How long until the seized Russian assets are sold or scrapped for money to fund Ukraine? I know there are "legal" issues around how to do this, but I don't see how countries can't just declare Russia an enemy of the state and make it legal to seize, auction or liquidate assets from any citizen of that country.

Well, I mean, the United States has property rights and due process enshrined in the fifth amendment of the US constitution.  And under international law, a foreign power’s property is immune from seizure, not that Russia seemed to give a lick about international law when, for example, it seized and annexed Crimea, let alone in this war.

I don’t think what you propose is possible under current understandings of US and international law, though interpretations can sometimes change under extreme circumstances.

BC

[Goose]

At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is leaked out that we have “advisors” in Ukraine.



BC

I am almost certain the UK has already done that. I think the US will probably not do that for a long while, if ever. Instead, I think they are sending "contractors" who are ex-military (possibly resigned last week) and are officially employees of Ukraine. That is perfectly legal. These guys are on their own hook and don't represent the US in any way. The fact the are all able to operate and train others to operate the equipment we are delivering is just good hiring by Ukraine. The aren't there to fight, just to help.

[Goose]

At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is leaked out that we have “advisors” in Ukraine.



BC

I am almost certain the UK has already done that. I think the US will probably not do that for a long while, if ever. Instead, I think they are sending "contractors" who are ex-military (possibly resigned last week) and are officially employees of Ukraine. That is perfectly legal. These guys are on their own hook and don't represent the US in any way. The fact the are all able to operate and train others to operate the equipment we are delivering is just good hiring by Ukraine. The aren't there to fight, just to help.