Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Has the US government been infiltrated by Russians?

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[FrFan]

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[FrFan]

"The Belarusian command has brought some of its units into combat readiness.

Conducting an offensive operation in Ukraine, the Russian occupiers use methods of combat prohibited by international humanitarian law:

seize social infrastructure,

Wear the uniform of the Ukrainian military, police and SES;

Sabotage special forces use ambulances and police cars stolen from doctors and ambulance stations;

Terrorists occupy children’s camps and schools, enemy artillery and MLRS are deployed on sports grounds.

Three ambulances with conditional markings of invaders were recently spotted in Kyiv. In Henichesk district of Kherson region, the Russian occupiers deployed MSTA-S artillery units in residential buildings.

A column is moving in the direction of Makariv – Kyiv, and to shield their armored vehicles, the enemy has placed on it children and women. However, the moral and psychological condition of the occupying forces is low.

Near Koriukivka in Chernihiv region, conscripts of the Russian Armed Forces are ready to lay down their arms and surrender. Hundreds of disabled armored vehicles and tanks have been abandoned all over Ukraine.

As of 18:00, the loss of enemy personnel amounted to about 4,500 people.

Destroyed and damaged aircraft – 27 units (to be specified), helicopters – 26 units, tanks – about 150, AFVs – more than 700 units, guns – about 50, one anti-aircraft missile complex BUK, four MLRS BM-21 Grad, 60 fuel tanks, 2 UAVs of tactical level, ships, boats – 2 units. There will be more. The calculation is complicated by the high intensity of hostilities."

Link

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by FrFan

[TradeTheBeal!]

WOT?

[CobraCommander]

4 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

WOT?

I think it’s written in Russian. Having a hard time translating.

[Renegade7]

40 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Has the US government been infiltrated by Russians?

 

Since at least 2016, and that's being generous.

[PeterMP]

4 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You are all over the place.

I don't know if you are speaking of "covert action" from an informed place or from the place described in post 2 to this thread. To be frank it appears to be the latter.

I am not going to debate those points anymore in this thread. However if you don't have an understanding of what covert action means and how it is executed and regulated here in the good ol USA then Joint Pub 1-20, Title 50 of the U.S. code, and EO12333 are good places to start. There is the water, feel free to drink at your own discretion. 

In short and easy to understand terms...

Overt engagement is not necessary nor is it a good idea at this point.

Covert engagement as described in this thread(missile strikes) is not practical in accordance with doctrine, policy, and law as described in the aforementioned sources. 

 

To answer the one question you asked in this post. No, it would not require that at all.  

 

I'm not all over the place.  You seem to be all over the place.

 

You started with we couldn't fire missiles at Russian positions and pretend like that we didn't.  That's false.  It does happen.  Countries have done it before.

 

Are you now suggesting that covert actions to assists the Ukrainians would be illegal?

 

The War Powers act gives the President broad discretion in using the military for at least 60 days and has been used to do things like remove Qadafi from power.

 

Doctrine and (foreign) policy are essentially completely in the prevue of the President.

 

How would the Ukrainian resistance be a giant NATO covert operation without having combatants enter as noncombatants?  Wouldn't that have required NATO fighters (combatants) enter the Ukraine as something other than combatants (i.e. as noncombatants)?

 

Whether any sort of action is required at this time depends on what our objective are and the future which none of us know.

 

If your objective is an independent Ukraine that existed as prior to the invasion and without an extended fight that likely causes billions of dollars to the Ukrainians and results in large numbers of dead civilians than some sort of action is likely going to be required.

 

If your objective is only to protect the short term interest of NATO countries, then doing nothing is likely the smart thing to do.

 

You don't just get to declare X isn't needed w/o stating why based on some sort of objectives.

Edited February 27, 2022 by PeterMP

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not all over the place.  You seem to be all over the place.

 

You started with we couldn't fire missiles at Russian positions and pretend like that isn't true.  That's false.  It does happen.  Countries have done it before.

 

Are now suggesting that covert actions to assists the Ukrainians would be illegal?

 

The War Powers act gives the President broad discretion in using the military for at least 60 days and has been used to do things like remove Qadafi from power.

 

Doctrine and policy are completely in the prevue of the President.

 

How would the Ukrainian resistance be a giant NATO covert operation without having combatants enter as noncombatants?  Wouldn't that have required NATO fighters (combatants) enter the Ukraine as something other than combatants (i.e. as noncombatants)?

I suggest you review the readings. 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

that said, there’s another major difference.  Weapon systems.  The fact that Russia has not been able to claim the skies in this conflict yet tells me that the resistance they’re meeting is advanced, well organized, and capable of threatening advanced air power.  We’re also seeing armor being blown to pieces by the latest anti tank missiles.  Ukraine has the means to fight back.  They also have the support of western nations who are moving to resupply them.  

Agreed. 
 

Assuming the reports are true, and Russia is losing tanks and fighter jets, then the opposition they're facing does not consist solely of shop keepers who grabbed a Molotov and an AK with no training, yesterday. 
 

There's people in Ukraine who have received advanced weapons, and training, well before the invasion. 

[FrFan]

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[mojo]

It’s crazy the way social media has shaped this conflict.  The way the people of Ukraine have captured the heart of the world, it seems less and less likely we let them fall.

[Simmsy]

8 minutes ago, mojo said:

It’s crazy the way social media has shaped this conflict.  The way the people of Ukraine have captured the heart of the world, it seems less and less likely we let them fall.

I don't want to take away from the discussion or the focus from Ukraine in general, but do you think the Dems will be able to use this to their advantage? Anyone who would side with Russia at this point just looks like a fool, now way the GOP will stick by their Pro Putin rhetoric.

[skinsmarydu]

4 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

 Anyone who would side with Russia at this point just looks like a fool, now way the GOP will stick by their Pro Putin rhetoric.

Don't fool yourself.  They followed Trump & Q...their idiocy knows no bounds.  

[dfitzo53]

44 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

WOT?

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I suggest you review the readings. 

 

I did.  They told me what I already knew.  The President has broad power to order cover activities if the President deems them important to national security/foreign policy except in the case of influencing the press, election, or public opinion.

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50.htm

 

"

§413b. Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions

(a) Presidential findings

The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government unless the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States, which determination shall be set forth in a finding that shall meet each of the following conditions:

(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President's decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made.

(2) Except as permitted by paragraph (1), a finding may not authorize or sanction a covert action, or any aspect of any such action, which already has occurred.

(3) Each finding shall specify each department, agency, or entity of the United States Government authorized to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in such action. Any employee, contractor, or contract agent of a department, agency, or entity of the United States Government other than the Central Intelligence Agency directed to participate in any way in a covert action shall be subject either to the policies and regulations of the Central Intelligence Agency, or to written policies or regulations adopted by such department, agency, or entity, to govern such participation.

(4) Each finding shall specify whether it is contemplated that any third party which is not an element of, or a contractor or contract agent of, the United States Government, or is not otherwise subject to United States Government policies and regulations, will be used to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in the covert action concerned, or be used to undertake the covert action concerned on behalf of the United States.

(5) A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States."

 

"

(f) Prohibition on covert actions intended to influence United States political processes, etc.

No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media."

 

Now that might sound like a high barrier, but "national security" has been invoked in a lot of things including our attacks on Panama, Grenada, and Libya so not that high really.  There are some requirements to inform congress (and not even the whole of congress but only certain committees) but again that's not that high of a barrier.

 

(And I'll go further and point out that in Libya we were active for more than the 60 days (though not covertly) where the War Powers Act should have kicked in and Obama essentially ignored it.

 

Obama and Trump also used forces in Syria despite a direct resolution from Congress saying they can't.

 

Now those actions might have been illegal (nobody ever sued them to see what the courts would say).  But historically the President has had a pretty large prevue to use the US military.

 

(You also ignored the question as to how the Ukrainian resistance could be one big NATO covert action w/o combatants entering the Ukraine as non-combatants.)

 

The EO is less relevant because it deals with intelligence and not military actions, but even it says the Dept. of Defense can:

 

"(c) Conduct programs and missions necessary to fulfill national, departmental and tactical foreign intelligence requirements;"

 

Which Biden can order.

 

If you are going to claim that covert actions to assist the Ukraine are illegal and want anybody to believe you, I think you are going to need something more concrete.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, spjunkies said:

 

 

Somebody is pissed off that Russia isn't winning. 
 

And he's certain that woke or trans or something is to blame for it. 

[bearrock]

I thought covert actions were domains of the CIA?  Can POTUS use the military for covert actions? (again, genuinely do not know)

[Larry]

And as to the covert-ness of options?  
 

Have to say that part of me would love for an A-10 or two to visit that Russian convoy. And if people get shocked, Biden make an announcement that maybe somebody bought US equipment and uniforms on the black market. 
 

(Putin made that claim when Russian troops were invading Ukraine, the first time.)

Edited February 27, 2022 by Larry

[ixcuincle]

 

[Redskins Diehard]

11 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I thought covert actions were domains of the CIA?  Can POTUS use the military for covert actions? (again, genuinely do not know)

You are correct. It is written in US code and the EO that Peter stated is "less relevant". He is arguing that we can launch missiles and deny it wasn't us. And sure, we could do that. It wouldn't be "plausible deniability" by any stretch of the imagination. And because there isn't plausible deniability we have lost the key part of covert operations. At which point we are doing de facto overt operations. Which while legal, are foolish and unneeded at this point. Thankfully the Administration isn't dumb enough to pull that off. Not only would that escalate but would damage credibility trying to deny something everyone knows we did. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Has the US government been infiltrated by Russians?