• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US giving intel to Ukraine for operations in Donbas, Defense Secretary says

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,436
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(CNN)Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.

--

In general terms, I realized the U.S. was providing intelligence & communications to the Ukrainian Army. But, I still am surprised and amazed at the scope and detail.

Though not in the article, I've seen commentary & analysis claiming the intelligence is not just operational intelligence, but tactical intelligence to the point of real-time pinpointing of targets at the lowest engagement levels! Wow!

--

I'll say it again:

"Boys & Girls, we have us a proxy war!"

I'll also add:

"I think Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew"
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Putin has always fed our enemies intelligence from Syria to Iran. Anything we can do to harm his regime is in bounds.
 
Last edited:

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,815
Reaction score
14,965
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other


--

In general terms, I realized the U.S. was providing intelligence & communications to the Ukrainian Army. But, I still am surprised and amazed at the scope and detail.

Though not in the article, I've seen commentary & analysis claiming the intelligence is not just operational intelligence, but tactical intelligence to the point of real-time pinpointing of targets at the lowest engagement levels! Wow!

--

I'll say it again:

"Boys & Girls, we have us a proxy war!"

I'll also add:

"I think Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew"
Probably helps to level the playing field a bit. Russia has a lot of intelligence capacities. The mention of "near real time" is interesting.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,436
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Probably helps to level the playing field a bit.

I'm sure it already has!

Russia has a lot of intelligence capacities.

I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest.

But, I am sure U.S. intelligence & battle technology is far & away in a league of its own, unequivocally the very best in the world.

The mention of "near real time" is interesting.

And while it's not in the article, it is apparently not just operational intelligence, but tactical, and tactical down to the lowest levels of engagement.

I'm actually wondering if it's possible the weaponry we've given the Ukrains can be guided from afar, say from a command HQ in Poland or elsewhere? That would mean the Ukrainian soldier launches the Javelin or whatever, using the navigation metrics the U.S. provides, and then the U.S. guides it to it's target.

Straight-up, I don't know what the capabilities of military weaponry are. Bur strictly evaluating this from a technological perspective, it should be doable. If I can conceive of it, I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. has done it. I'm fairly certain the technology is doable.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure it already has!



I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest.



And while it's not in the article, it is apparently not just operational intelligence, but tactical, and tactical down to the lowest levels of engagement.

I'm actually wondering if it's possible the weaponry we've given the Ukrains can be guided from afar, say from a command HQ in Poland or elsewhere? That would mean the Ukrainian soldier launches the Javelin or whatever, using the navigation metrics the U.S. provides, and then the U.S. guides it to it's target.

Straight-up, I don't know what the capabilities of military weaponry are. Bur strictly evaluating this from a technological perspective, it should be doable. If I can conceive of it, I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. has done it. I'm fairly certain the technology is doable.

Ruskies stuck their heads up. Don't blame us.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's say someone called you and said, "I got a Ruskie in my sights, give me the coordinates!" and you had those coordinates, you would not see to the demise of the Ruskie?

It's good to kill Ruskies. Hell, killing Ruskies was American before my time and it's back baby.
 

braindrain

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
14,567
Reaction score
5,049
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure it already has!



I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest.

But, I am sure U.S. intelligence & battle technology is far & away in a league of its own, unequivocally the very best in the world.



And while it's not in the article, it is apparently not just operational intelligence, but tactical, and tactical down to the lowest levels of engagement.

I'm actually wondering if it's possible the weaponry we've given the Ukrains can be guided from afar, say from a command HQ in Poland or elsewhere? That would mean the Ukrainian soldier launches the Javelin or whatever, using the navigation metrics the U.S. provides, and then the U.S. guides it to it's target.

Straight-up, I don't know what the capabilities of military weaponry are. Bur strictly evaluating this from a technological perspective, it should be doable. If I can conceive of it, I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. has done it. I'm fairly certain the technology is doable.
You can’t do that with a javelin or any other manpack missile system in the US military that I am aware of.

And anything that you could do that would be susceptible to jamming. It would also increase the size and weight of the weapon system greatly.

And honestly it seems like the value of such a thing would be extremely limited boarding on pointless.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,436
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I appreciate your input; thanks.

You can’t do that with a javelin or any other manpack missile system in the US military that I am aware of.

I have no idea. I used Javelin simply as an example.


And anything that you could do that would be susceptible to jamming.

Fair point.

It would also increase the size and weight of the weapon system greatly.

Ditto.

And honestly it seems like the value of such a thing would be extremely limited boarding on pointless.

I was thinking something like that could already be in our arsenal, but on rethinking you could be right. The idea of something like a Javelin is to impower the individual soldier and small groups. If a command or control HQ needed to get involved, the would likely just call in a strike from some other resource they have.

So yeah, I suppose the type of armament I'm suggesting would not have much use in the current structure of the U.S. forces, and would only be useful in trying to circumvent some restriction, such as the one we currently have where we will not put boots on the ground, or planes in the air.
 

braindrain

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
14,567
Reaction score
5,049
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I appreciate your input; thanks.



I have no idea. I used Javelin simply as an example.




Fair point.



Ditto.



I was thinking something like that could already be in our arsenal, but on rethinking you could be right. The idea of something like a Javelin is to impower the individual soldier and small groups. If a command or control HQ needed to get involved, the would likely just call in a strike from some other resource they have.

So yeah, I suppose the type of armament I'm suggesting would not have much use in the current structure of the U.S. forces, and would only be useful in trying to circumvent some restriction, such as the one we currently have where we will not put boots on the ground, or planes in the air.
Yeah I really just don’t see the practical use of such a weapon for the 99.9% of what the US military does.

Or even the real point honestly.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,436
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah I really just don’t see the practical use of such a weapon for the 99.9% of what the US military does.

Or even the real point honestly.

I guess I'll shelve this, not call "Invent Help", and move on to my next idea that's gonna' make me a million! ;)
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
80,284
Reaction score
63,156
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
did you guys know that Putin's unwillingness to pull out has earned him the nickname Nick Cannon?
 

Nomad4Ever

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
8,323
Reaction score
10,269
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
96,926
Reaction score
81,183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


--

In general terms, I realized the U.S. was providing intelligence & communications to the Ukrainian Army. But, I still am surprised and amazed at the scope and detail.

Though not in the article, I've seen commentary & analysis claiming the intelligence is not just operational intelligence, but tactical intelligence to the point of real-time pinpointing of targets at the lowest engagement levels! Wow!

--

I'll say it again:

"Boys & Girls, we have us a proxy war!"

I'll also add:

"I think Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew"
What’s interesting about this particular proxy war is I don’t recall the US being quite so…vocal…about support we gave to countries fighting Russia in the past. For all I know, U.S. support for the Mujahedeen in the 80’s may have been considered the worst kept secret, but we certainly didn’t announce what we were doing. As you can see from this New York Times article from 1988, it definitely wasn’t official, public policy. I think the main difference is that the public outcry against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is so great that quiet assistance isn’t politically tenable. Which is kind of remarkable when you think about it, because technically speaking, the equations then and now are pretty much the same when it comes to undesired escalation between the two nuclear superpowers.

“With help from China and many Moslem nations, the United States led a huge international operation over the last eight years to arm the Afghan guerrillas with the weapons they needed to drive the Soviet Army from their country.

The operation is one of the biggest ever mounted by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to American officials and foreign diplomats. It dwarfs American efforts to aid the Nicaraguan rebels, but its details are much less widely known because it encountered little opposition in Congress.

Indeed, Congress was continually prodding the C.I.A., the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department to provide more support for the Afghan guerrillas, who limped along with relatively ineffective weapons until they got Stinger antiaircraft missiles in September 1986. They used the missiles to shoot down armored Soviet helicopter gunships, and as a result, the guerrillas and their supply caravans have been able to move with much less fear of being attacked from the air. Cost Totals $2 Billion

As Afghanistan and three other nations signed agreements last week providing for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, these details of the supply operation emerged from interviews with members of Congress and officials at the White House, intelligence agencies, the Defense Department, the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget:

For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance. They could maintain that the guerrillas had captured the weapons from the Afghan Government or from Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”

 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
33,413
Reaction score
21,113
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whatever makes things extremely difficult for the KGB Butcher....
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,436
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What’s interesting about this particular proxy war is I don’t recall the US being quite so…vocal…about support we gave to countries fighting Russia in the past. For all I know, U.S. support for the Mujahedeen in the 80’s may have been considered the worst kept secret, but we certainly didn’t announce what we were doing. As you can see from this New York Times article from 1988, it definitely wasn’t official, public policy. I think the main difference is that the public outcry against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is so great that quiet assistance isn’t politically tenable. Which is kind of remarkable when you think about it, because technically speaking, the equations then and now are pretty much the same when it comes to undesired escalation between the two nuclear superpowers.

It definitely is interesting!

Perhaps it politics, but I don't know.

It seems like Putin set the ground-rules, and the U.S. & West then said,

"Fine! Two can play this game! You made the rules, we'll play within them & kick your ass! Now, you're going to be sorry! Next time, make better rules . . . "

“With help from China and many Moslem nations, the United States led a huge international operation over the last eight years to arm the Afghan guerrillas with the weapons they needed to drive the Soviet Army from their country.

The operation is one of the biggest ever mounted by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to American officials and foreign diplomats. It dwarfs American efforts to aid the Nicaraguan rebels, but its details are much less widely known because it encountered little opposition in Congress.

Indeed, Congress was continually prodding the C.I.A., the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department to provide more support for the Afghan guerrillas, who limped along with relatively ineffective weapons until they got Stinger antiaircraft missiles in September 1986. They used the missiles to shoot down armored Soviet helicopter gunships, and as a result, the guerrillas and their supply caravans have been able to move with much less fear of being attacked from the air. Cost Totals $2 Billion

As Afghanistan and three other nations signed agreements last week providing for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, these details of the supply operation emerged from interviews with members of Congress and officials at the White House, intelligence agencies, the Defense Department, the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget:

For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance. They could maintain that the guerrillas had captured the weapons from the Afghan Government or from Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”


Did you see this, below, I just posted?

 
Top Bottom