Is Biden Taking Us To War With Russia?

[Rightguide]

If The U.S. Is Giving Ukraine Real-Time Battlefield Intel, Congress Needs To Vote On It​

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON
MAY 06, 2022

The New York Times claimed this week that the United States is providing real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine that has enabled the Ukrainians to target and kill approximately a dozen Russian generals, and helped locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet last month.

Described as a “classified effort,” the U.S. provision of targeting intelligence to Ukraine “also includes anticipated Russian troop movements gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan for the fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine,” according to the Times.

The Times’ reporting relies on anonymous “senior American officials,” but if true it represents a sharp and unprecedented escalation of U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, such that Congress should immediately debate and vote on whether to authorize the use of military force in Ukraine.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/0...ttlefield-intel-congress-needs-to-vote-on-it/

Well, what do you think? Do we need Congress to vote on another AUMF?

Indeed, providing real-time targeting intelligence brings the United States right up to the line of belligerence, and arguably over it. The Biden administration seems to understand this. According to the Times, the administration “has sought to keep much of the battlefield intelligence secret, out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war.”

The White House is right to fear this outcome, because it’s entirely possible that Putin will absolutely consider this level of battlefield participation by the United States tantamount to an act of war. That’s no doubt why the Biden administration snapped into damage control mode after the Times story about targeting intelligence published on Wednesday.

 

[pecksniff]

Well, what do you think? Do we need Congress to vote on another AUMF?

No, because providing intel to Ukraine is not the same as using military force, which is not a thing we're going to do here. We can (probably) provide intel without risking nuclear retaliation.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

We're already in a proxy war with them. Everything else is just the part of realpolitik that recognizes the utility of bullshitting on a global scale. Literally everybody plugged in to high-level geopolitics knows that the U.S. - and many other countries - is/are waging a proxy war against Russia. They also know that it's a war that Russia started back in 2014, and that it was a complete asshole move on their part. Their pretexts were (and remain) thinner than the paper comprising their tiger.

Of course, certain kinds of bullshit can become reality if enough people buy it. At this point, even Russia is implicitly buying the bullshit that we're not actually at war with them. For now, basically everyone thinks they stand to benefit from said bullshit. There's really no telling how much longer that will last, or how much it will matter once Russia (most likely) stops buying it. What happens if they say "well clearly all you guys are at war with us, for real?" Probably nothing. Russia won't risk making a conventional first strike on any NATO member. NATO will decide to keep playing it cool, because they're still a little bit worried about those nukes - and the outside possibility that China will decide to take Russia's side for real if any real heat hits Russia's core territory.

As long as everybody's buying this bullshit, Congress won't face any real pressure to do anything. I doubt they'd face much regardless. If Russia formally declares war on us, Congress is either going to declare it back, or stay the fuck out of the military's way. I'm not sure even the modern GOP could survive demanding that a Democratic president not fight against a country that formally declared war against us. Those psyops that Goering infamously discussed are in play regardless of whether a given war is justified, and regardless of whether any given threat is real. They benefit all the pro-war politicians on every side of every conflict, regardless of who among them you think is right, wrong, or flat-out insane.

I say all this irrespective of my personal thoughts on whether we should be fighting Russia - or, you know (hint, hint,) on whether we're 8 years late to the "definitely not a war."

 

[Rightguide]

No, because providing intel to Ukraine is not the same as using military force, which is not a thing we're going to do here. We can (probably) provide intel without risking nuclear retaliation.

So if we were listening in on Putin's telephone calls, uncovered Putin's complete war plan and battle order, monitored the conversations of his field commanders, pinpointed the exact GPS location of every one of his general officers and their staffs in the field, right down to real time targeting information, and turned it all over to the Ukrainians to take immediate action upon, he wouldn't have cause to initiate a retaliatory strike against us? Just askin'.

 

[pecksniff]

So if we were listening in on Putin's telephone calls, uncovered Putin's complete war plan and battle order, monitored the conversations of his field commanders, pinpointed the exact GPS location of every one of his general officers and their staffs in the field, right down to real time targeting information, and turned it all over to the Ukrainians to take immediate action upon, he wouldn't have cause to initiate a retaliatory strike against us? Just askin'.

Under the internationally accepted rules of war as they have developed since WWII (before which, right of conquest was as legitimate as anything else), no, he wouldn't. Spying is something everybody gets to do; the most drastic response permissible is to execute spies when you catch them.

 

[Rightguide]

Under the internationally accepted rules of war as they have developed since WWII (before which, right of conquest was as legitimate as anything else), no, he wouldn't. Spying is something everybody gets to do; the most drastic response permissible is to execute spies when you catch them.

I think you are more wrong than right. If it were happening to us that source would be taken out.

 

[pecksniff]

I think you are more wrong than right. If it were happening to us that source would be taken out.

Only in that we would dispatch our own spies to kill the source. We wouldn't go to war over it.

 

[Rightguide]

Only in that we would dispatch our own spies to kill the source. We wouldn't go to war over it.

This isn't the work of human spies on the ground. It's our reconnaissance satellites, orbital platforms, and aircraft like our RC-135 Rivet Joint that are flying along that border daily sucking up just about everything in the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[icanhelp1]

If The U.S. Is Giving Ukraine Real-Time Battlefield Intel, Congress Needs To Vote On It​

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON
MAY 06, 2022

The New York Times claimed this week that the United States is providing real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine that has enabled the Ukrainians to target and kill approximately a dozen Russian generals, and helped locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet last month.

Described as a “classified effort,” the U.S. provision of targeting intelligence to Ukraine “also includes anticipated Russian troop movements gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan for the fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine,” according to the Times.

The Times’ reporting relies on anonymous “senior American officials,” but if true it represents a sharp and unprecedented escalation of U.S. involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war, such that Congress should immediately debate and vote on whether to authorize the use of military force in Ukraine.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/0...ttlefield-intel-congress-needs-to-vote-on-it/

Well, what do you think? Do we need Congress to vote on another AUMF?

Indeed, providing real-time targeting intelligence brings the United States right up to the line of belligerence, and arguably over it. The Biden administration seems to understand this. According to the Times, the administration “has sought to keep much of the battlefield intelligence secret, out of fear it will be seen as an escalation and provoke President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia into a wider war.”

The White House is right to fear this outcome, because it’s entirely possible that Putin will absolutely consider this level of battlefield participation by the United States tantamount to an act of war. That’s no doubt why the Biden administration snapped into damage control mode after the Times story about targeting intelligence published on Wednesday.

It's all about OPSEC. People can't keep their mouth shut starting with the actual breakdown of weapons inventory by noun nomenclature to delivery dates., Nancy Pelosi acting as SoS guaranteeing the US is in it till victory. Just plain ole incompetence. The US and NATO should be pushing for a settlement of some sort. If Putin sees all this as a no win situation and an existential threat we could see mushrooms breaking out all over the place.

 

[icanhelp1]

No, because providing intel to Ukraine is not the same as using military force, which is not a thing we're going to do here. We can (probably) provide intel without risking nuclear retaliation.

You don't think the Russians think that providing high value target sets and GPS coordinates as military force, put the shoe on the other foot!!

 

[icanhelp1]

Under the internationally accepted rules of war as they have developed since WWII (before which, right of conquest was as legitimate as anything else), no, he wouldn't. Spying is something everybody gets to do; the most drastic response permissible is to execute spies when you catch them.

Russia obviously doesn't play by international norms, are you fucking blind?

 

[pecksniff]

This isn't the work of human spies on the ground. It's our reconnaissance satellites, orbital platforms, and aircraft like our RC-135 Rivet Joint that are flying along that border daily sucking up just about everything in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Everything in the electromagnetic spectrum is fair game -- anyone can listen in. If Russia had similar capabilities and were using them, we would not treat that as a casus belli.

 

[pecksniff]

Russia obviously doesn't play by international norms, are you fucking blind?

The question was what the U.S. would do, not what Russia would do.

 

[ll74]

The answer is no, he is not.

Putin, however,.may be taking Russia to war with the rest of the world.

 

[icanhelp1]

The answer is no, he is not.

Putin, however,.may be taking Russia to war with the rest of the world.

The west not the world.

 

[ll74]

The west not the world.

You may believe that

 

[Wrong Element]

There's a school of thought that says leaking all this stuff is a form of psychological warfare against Putin, letting him know that all of their precautions are for naught because we know exactly what they're up to at all times, and stoking his paranoia.

The other viewpoint is that everyone ought to just keep their mouths shut. I'm not sure who's right.

If Russia objects to our assisting Ukraine in its own national defense, tough. Their saber-rattling is looking a little pathetic at present.

 

[icanhelp1]

You may believe that

I'd be willing to wager that China, N Korea, Iran, Syria would fall in line with Russia.

 

[anarchoMando]

He likely can't with the mad doctrine


Now will he sell weapons yes

But because America has nukes Russia can't really do anything to us
And because Russia has nukes, we can't do a little coup on Putin

 

[pecksniff]

There's a school of thought that says leaking all this stuff is a form of psychological warfare against Putin, letting him know that all of their precautions are for naught because we know exactly what they're up to at all times, and stoking his paranoia.

It is never a good idea to stoke Russian paranoia.

 

[icanhelp1]

There's a school of thought that says leaking all this stuff is a form of psychological warfare against Putin, letting him know that all of their precautions are for naught because we know exactly what they're up to at all times, and stoking his paranoia.

The other viewpoint is that everyone ought to just keep their mouths shut. I'm not sure who's right.

If Russia objects to our assisting Ukraine in its own national defense, tough. Their saber-rattling is looking a little pathetic at present.

You can get things done without broadcasting your operability, it's called OPSEC.

If you're going to poke the bear do it from behind a tree where it can't see you or ID who and what you are.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

You can get things done without broadcasting your operability, it's called OPSEC.

If you're going to poke the bear do it from behind a tree where it can't see you or ID who and what you are.

If OPSEC were literally the only part of a complex international situation that mattered, then sure. It's not. Politics is pretty much all-encompassing, and war is even more all-encompassing than that. Everything is on the table. That includes shouting accurate information from the rooftops to secure some kind of an advantage.

For fuck's sake, think about MAD. It works precisely because it violates traditional notions of OPSEC to a certain extent. Hiding the truth of your retaliatory strike capability is extremely high risk. MAD is all about trust. You want to loudly announce that you have sufficient retaliatory strike capability. You then never ever ever want there to be even the slightest risk that your geopolitical opponents will discover that you don't. Instead, you want them to be able to confirm, with a reasonable level of detail, how fucked they will be if they launch a first strike. You want them to be able to do some fuzzy math on their side, and really tally up those casualties, fatalities, hits to infrastructure, etc. etc.

That's just one example of when volunteering accurate information to your enemies/opponents is a good thing. Now think about the potential benefits of disseminating accurate information to the global community. Think about how it might increase their confidence in your own capabilities. Think about how it might cause them to consider, or reconsider, joining your coalition or at least staying the fuck out of your way. Think of the second-order benefits of disseminating information about your opponents' own misdeeds, even if it means indirectly revealing to said opponent that you're (very effectively) spying on them.

Rare is the luxury of being narrow-minded in war.

 

[icanhelp1]

If OPSEC were literally the only part of a complex international situation that mattered, then sure. It's not. Politics is pretty much all-encompassing, and war is even more all-encompassing than that. Everything is on the table. That includes shouting accurate information from the rooftops to secure some kind of an advantage.

I'm not so sure you understand what OPSEC really is, you're conflating OPSEC with deterrent.

For fuck's sake, think about MAD. It works precisely because it violates traditional notions of OPSEC to a certain extent. Hiding the truth of your retaliatory strike capability is extremely high risk. MAD is all about trust. You want to loudly announce that you have sufficient retaliatory strike capability. You then never ever ever want there to be even the slightest risk that your geopolitical opponents will discover that you don't. Instead, you want them to be able to confirm, with a reasonable level of detail, how fucked they will be if they launch a first strike. You want them to be able to do some fuzzy math on their side, and really tally up those casualties, fatalities, hits to infrastructure, etc. etc.

I'm very aware of the meaning of MAD. MAD is a symbolic term which came onto the scene with the advent of nuclear weapons and their ability to destroy the planet. MAD is an accepted equilibrium of weapons systems to include the ability for a retaliatory strike as devastating as a first strike assuring total destruction of both countries. Deterrent!! Insuring that your enemy is **aware of your ability** is not the same as divulging your military secrets, location and movement of weapon systems, types, the spectrum of capabilities or numbers. Not knowing is just as psychologically effective at deterrence as is a real observable demonstration of potential. A good example is the Cuban Missile crisis.

That's just one example of when volunteering accurate information to your enemies/opponents is a good thing. Now think about the potential benefits of disseminating accurate information to the global community. Think about how it might increase their confidence in your own capabilities. Think about how it might cause them to consider, or reconsider, joining your coalition or at least staying the fuck out of your way. Think of the second-order benefits of disseminating information about your opponents' own misdeeds, even if it means indirectly revealing to said opponent that you're (very effectively) spying on them.

In this case there is no doubt that the west and Russia are quite aware of each others military capabilities. When nuclear weapons are in the equation it is a no-win situation. Backing Russia into a no win situation could be deemed an existential threat and change the complexion of the war and lead to escalation. Delivering battlefield intel is an advantage for Ukraine no doubt but there comes a time where congressional approval is necessary. Congress needs to be completely aware of all ramifications of our involvement to include the possibility of an unwanted direct conflict with Russia and what the plan is for a response and what the response would be in the event of the use of WMD.

This is not our war! Look your children in the eyes when you hear politicians proclaim "The US in it till you win" Ask yourself what exactly does that mean? They're maybe making promises at our expense. It is something the american people should have a say in.

 

[slutindianwife]

Biden is Obamas puppet.
So you should ask..
is obama taking u to war!

 

[Rightguide]

No, because providing intel to Ukraine is not the same as using military force, which is not a thing we're going to do here. We can (probably) provide intel without risking nuclear retaliation.

Targeting info is a whole different matter. Biden is ready to extend the old lend-lease act to Ukraine. The point is, it isn't too hard it seems for Putin to arrive at the conclusion that the only thing "Ukrainian" about this war is the people on the ground fighting it. All of the Ukrainian wherewithal for fighting the war is coming from the west. I don't think we should be surprised if he lashes out and attacks these cross-border supply sources. We have to be ready for it.