Yes. So what?

You takes their money AND your chance

The United States helped the Ukrainian armed forces kill “many” of the Russian generals who have died in combat during the Russia-Ukraine war, through the sharing of intelligence, anonymous senior American officials told The New York Times.

U.S. intelligence officials reportedly provided “real-time battlefield intelligence” to the Ukrainian forces, in the form of anticipating Russian troop movements “gleaned from recent American assessments of Moscow’s secret battle plan” for attacking the eastern Ukraine region of Donbas, sources told the Times.

The result: Ukrainian officials report approximately 12 Russian generals have been killed in battle.

This classified targeting effort from the Biden administration focused on providing “the location and other details” of the Russian military’s constantly changing mobile headquarters.

Ukrainian officials then combined the geographical updates with their own intelligence to conduct artillery strikes and other modes of attack against the Russian officers — some of whom reportedly held senior-level titles.

The Biden administration was quick to publicly denounce Russia for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began Feb. 24. The condemnation included sanctions against Moscow and sending military aid packages to Ukraine.

At the same time, U.S. officials had been previously silent about sophisticated intelligence missions like this, perhaps out of fear of Russian President Vladimir Putin viewing these moves as an “escalation attempt,” which could lead to a broader war, involving other countries.

It is a fine line to walk, especially with the Russians warning the U.S. on Wednesday about sending more arms to Ukraine.

Citing the Times report, the U.S. intelligence support given to Ukraine has had a “decisive effect on the battlefield.”

As such, the “flow of actionable intelligence on the movement of Russian troops that America has given Ukraine has few precedents.”

Comment: These fellows are fair game. pl

Report: US Intelligence Helped Ukrainian Forces Kill Russian Generals |

List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine – Wikipedia

This entry was posted in Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Yes. So what?

  1. Whitewall says:

    I don’t understand why Uke officials or anyone else would tell the media this info, if true. Tell the media tell everyone. Seems people would keep their traps shut about methods and maybe kill even more high ranking officers. Why talk?

    • Jimmy_W says:

      Biden and his peeps are desperate for any glory and good news for themselves.

    • 505th PIR says:

      I think the Russians have been aware from the git-go of who and what is hunting their command structure. Its been easy for your average civilian Joe to see all along. Happy Hunting Ukraine and “Friends”. Kill them til they stop coming.

    • Degringolade says:


      I wrote a piece over at my place today.

      The gist of it is, I am not certain who is getting played by whom.

      • Whitewall says:

        I read your piece and some good questions. There may be no ‘Russian motive’ outside of V. Putin keeping his status and position on top. Casualties no matter whose don’t matter to him apparently, even the officers with the ‘I was there’ ribbons and bars.

    • Al says:

      As noted above, it was “anonymous USA administrators that blabbed!

      [The United States helped the Ukrainian armed forces kill “many” of the Russian generals who have died in combat during the Russia-Ukraine war, through the sharing of intelligence, anonymous senior American officials told The New York Times.]

    • James Nawrocki says:

      I have a different perspective.
      Notwithstanding all of the bravo from the Russian military, I get the impression that deep down they nurse a feeling of inferiority. And I also get the impression that no matter how hard the American military tries to be humble in their achievements they just cannot help themselves to revel in revealing to the world Russian weakness to the point of humiliation. Going public with our intel capabilities is akin to making sure senior Russian commanders appreciate:
      We know where you live.

      • Bill Roche says:

        I am very glad Russian Generals have been killed. I hope more Russian gen’l officers are dispatched. This is good news.

      • Leith says:

        James N –

        I seriously doubt the inferiority you mention. But your last sentence hits a bullseye. Someone in the Pentagon has decided that sending this message to Russian military leadership might make them a bit gun-shy and turn turtle. Therefore slowing down their offensive even more than it is already stalled.

        There are other similar deliberate ‘leaks’ coming out. NBC reports that unnamed officials recently claimed “intelligence shared by the U.S. helped Ukraine sink the Russian cruiser Moskva.”

        These are no NatSec leaks like someone downthread has claimed. And it’s not someone trying to take credit where none is warranted. And it’s not a cover story to hide the true source of intel. It is a calculated move to stir up doubts with Russian commanders about Putin’s misguided adventure and his bush-league strategy.

    • fredw says:


      You make a good point about the purpose of this theme. Why would the US announce such a thing. Well of course they didn’t. The original NY Times story that started this off treats killing generals as an effect, not a purpose. When the Ukrainians hit field headquarters, they tend to kill field commanders. Under today’s circumstances, a surprisingly high portion of Russian commanders in the field are generals. In that sense the deliberate hunting of general officers seems to be an MSM-generated rumor unsubstantiated by any evidence beyond ruminations of unidentified “senior American officials”.

      Still, somebody started this rumor. Somebody (one or more “senior American officials”) used it to pursue a perceived advantage. The comments here raise several theories.

      1. James Nawrocki supposes that “they just cannot help themselves to revel in revealing to the world Russian weakness”. This is mind-reading, but based on perceived characteristics of some Washington players. Your mileage with this theory depends on your perception of US “senior American officials”. A scurvy lot admittedly.
      2. ked suggests that raising this rumor might be covering for “the true source of intel”. A more professional reason with plausible utility.
      3. Degringolade questions “who is getting played by whom” and speculates(in a link) about reflexive control as a technique for influence your opponent’s decisions. This overlaps with the cover story theory. The question then is “Whose decisions are intended to be influenced?” Russian security services? The generals themselves? Putin and his circle?
      4. This rumor can be viewed as a continuation of the campaign of intelligence revelation that the Biden administration conducted before the war began. The Russian elite is meant to fear that they have no actual secrets. Whether that fear induces caution or increased (?!) rigidity or purging for suppression of leaks almost doesn’t matter. All those possibilities are seriously damaging to their ability to get things done.

      I of course tend toward theory 4 simply because I think that it gets the target right.

  2. “So what”
    Do you really expect that the Russians will take direct U.S. involvement in the killing of their generals lying down?
    That they will not, eventually, find some way to retaliate?
    Which will get the U.S. involved in a direct confrontation with Russia.
    And over what?
    Who controls Ukraine?
    Who cares? Certainly not I.

    That doesn’t make me a “Putin puppet”,
    just someone who doesn’t think the U.S. should get involved in so many foreign conflicts.

    • Fred says:


      “Do you really expect that.. lying down?”
      Not that I care to give anyone advice but they might want to finish the war they are bogged down in before they start another one.

    • Whitewall says:

      Maybe Putin has assets here in the States like the USSR did in case he or his successor wants to return the favor?

  3. Leith says:

    Those generals were not specifically targeted. It was just a happy circumstance for the Ukrainians that the general was in the command post when it was targeted. And targeting command posts is as old as warfare itself. Targeting those CPs was done to disrupt Russian command and control capabilities. Especially relevant now since from what we know of Russian Army lack of Auftragstaktik or Mission Orders. Their junior leadership seem to be frozen in place without specific orders from higher HQ.

    Denying combat units the ability to receive & transmit comms to higher HQ is a damned good tactic in war. It is why we take precautions to protect friendly command and control capabilities. I expect that the Ukrainians already had a somewhat imperfect fix on those Russian CPs through radio direction finding. We probably gave them some more precision coordinates. Maybe from eyes in the sky? The NYT article itself says that the battlefield intelligence was not provided to the Ukrainians “with the intent to kill Russian generals.”

    • Barbara Ann says:


      Perhaps the NYT is recalling that it described allegations that Russia was paying the Taliban bounties to kill US troops “a stunning intelligence assessment”?

      • Leith says:

        Barbara Ann –

        Perhaps you are right. Neither the NYT nor the American people would be above a little bit of petty payback action.

        However I remain convinced the passing of intel on specific coordinates of Russian military command posts was not an attempt to assassinate Russian generals. There is much more disruption to Putin’s war aims in taking out C2 centers than in taking out a few generals. Especially so with the rigid hub & spoke leadership of Putin’s military organization. Destroy a tendon and the muscle attached to it is useless. Destroy the nervous system and the entire body becomes inoperative.

        Taking out a Combined Army CP destroys much more than targeting a general who can be replaced. Consider for example the devastation in an American unit if a strike took out the brains (Chief of Staff, Ops Officer, entire G-3 section), the eyes and ears (Intel Officer and G-2 section), the lifeblood (Logistics Officer and G-4 section), plus the ability of speech (CommO and all the radios and their operators).

        And I suspect that we learned our lesson on the assassination of bon Laden, Soleimani and ISIS leadership. It just generated more hate and more terrorism.

    • joe90 says:

      Those generals were not specifically targeted.


      The Russians also have a lot more Generals than NATO per unit, they have been accused of being top heavy which was true do to reasons during the 90s/00s. They just have a different force structure due to different doctrine. If we lose a General, we have probably lost the unit he was commanding, if they lose a General, maybe maybe not and someone gets a quick promotion. If we assume like for like we wont understand how they fight and will get a miss leading understanding of what is happening.

      For those interested has a free download that goes into the differences.

      • TTG says:


        “If we lose a General, we have probably lost the unit he was commanding”

        If you believe that, you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground about the US Army or the very concept of mission command.

        • joe90 says:

          You have not explained why I am wrong, it is easy to say ice cream is strawberry.

          • TTG says:


            Even squad patrols establish a chain of command/chain of succession prior to entering combat. All units do this and practice it in training. No US military unit will collapse if the commander is incapacitated. Understand?

      • Leith says:

        Joe 90 –

        Those Russian generals were NOT specifically targeted either.

  4. ked says:

    Conspiracies being all the rage, I’m surprised the anti-US-Ukraine War Policy contingent hasn’t claimed the announcement is an info-op by Biden’s WH to take credit where none is warranted. Better yet (& my personal favorite), the claim is a misinformation screen for the true source of intel on the generals locations. insider humint… probably part of the Russian army’s operational headquarters security / secure comms team. anyway;
    Russian General: “Major, please join me for a vodka after dinner.”
    Major: “No thank you General… I prefer my chances in combat.”
    I’ve never been too impressed by folk who remain wedded to an ideological viewpoint when overcome by facts derived from specific events. on the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for those who can entertain two (or more!) alternative explanations / analysis of a situation at the same time.

  5. TV says:

    Another natsec leak from the “very important” scumbags who infest the swamp.
    Find these traitors, try them and lock them up.
    LMAO – never happen, the swamp always protects its own.
    The FBI is busy tracking down Biden’s grandaughter’s diary.

  6. James says:

    I have a question for the Colonel and TTG – is killing generals actually useful? Can they not be simply replaced by a subordinate who will be equally or possibly more effective? Perhaps I am biased but I am inclined to think that institutions can become ossified and will often benefit from “young blood”.

    Or perhaps our intelligence is so good that we can kill the skilled generals and spare the more incompetent ones.

    • TTG says:


      Killing the enemy in time of war is very useful. That involves killing generals. When the enemy is a strict top down structure like the Russian Army, killing generals is especially useful, even the more incompetent ones. Killing colonels and other officers is also good. There’s nothing profound in what I just said.

      • Fred says:


        Wasn’t it Stonewall Jackson who said something to the effect of ‘ shoot the brave ones (soldiers), so you could live in peace with the others sooner”?

        • TTG says:


          A few days ago, I read another observation by a Civil War soldier. He said he would shoot the privates because they are the ones who shoot at you. He didn’t bother shooting at officers since they didn’t shoot at you and were, therefore, harmless.

          • Fred says:


            Sherman and Jackson and Grant were certainly not ‘harmless’. Though Burnside and Hooker…..

          • TTG says:


            Speaking of Civil War generals, Matt Palmquist of @CivilWarHumor has this as his pinned tweet:

            “McClellan’s statues should have come down first – he did more to help the Confederacy than Jefferson Davis.”

          • Leith says:

            I’m not sure how the War Dept ever slipped the Fort McClellan name onto the people of Alabama. That name should be changed along with Ft Bragg.

            Fort Devens needs a name change also. General Devens was the guy that let Jackson’s Corps take Hooker’s right flank at Chancellorsville. It’s been said Devens ignored his subordinates when they told him the Johnny Rebs were coming at them. He thought they were just a bit jittery with Stonewall Fever.

            Thank the stars that no Fort is named after ‘Bumbler’ Butler. The guy wanted to prosecute Lee and overturn Grant’s surrender terms.

          • TTG says:


            I thought Fort Devens was gone. The road signs were changes from Fort Devens to just Devens. However I guess it is still a USAR training installation. Looked at Google Maps and saw the company grade housing I was in is long gone as are the WWII barracks that served as team houses for 2nd and 3rd battalions of 10th Group. The golf course is still there, of course.

            Here’s another couple of tweets on McClellen comparing him with Grant.

            “You can strut around and waste time, you can play it safe, you can tell people how great you are, you can charm the pants off the consultant class, but there comes a time when you must see your “countrymen” for what they are — the enemy — and make it your object to defeat them.”

            “Folks, you’re reading waaaay too much into this. It’s a simple comparison of two prominent Union generals’ attitudes on prosecuting the Civil War, one on whom is on the $50 bill, and one of whom 99/100 Americans couldn’t name.”

    • Leith says:

      James –

      Agree about ‘young blood’. Perhaps those units with new younger commanders will adapt to Ukrainian tactics and rescue some small part of Putin’s debacle.

      But I disagree that either we or the Ukrainians were hunting down generals to kill. The intent was to neutralize their command posts and choke their communications.

    • fredw says:


      The replacements will likely be younger and very possibly more competent. But not on day 1. On day 1, they will be almost certain to be floundering and learning their jobs the hard way. I have seen such a pattern of improvement through replacement described for Afghanistan. But the Taliban had decades to train up the replacements. The Russians in Ukraine don’t have that kind of time. And even for The Afghans, the major additional competence was “hard to kill”. Sometimes, admittedly, that is enough. But not here.

  7. joe90 says:

    The Russians fight differently from NATO armies, Russians Generals fight from the front, NATO from the rear. Different not better or worse, so more Generals die.


    goes into it and can easily be found on the internet as a free download.

    • Leith says:

      joe90 –

      I call horsepucky. Tell it to the relatives of US Generals Bond, Burdett, Dillard, Hochmuth, Tallman, and Ware in Nam. Or in WW2 Generals Buckner & McNair, Admirals Callahan & Scott and the 24 other Flag Officers KIA.

      Besides, the only Russian general killed at the front that I’m aware of is one star airborne general Andrei Sukhovetsky. He was killed by a sniper at Hostomel Airfield on 28 February. All the others were at high level command posts and nowhere near the front.

      • joe90 says:

        Nam was 50 years ago, things change, also from wiki, some of them were near the frontline. Major General Magomed Tushayev was killed in Hostomel 35km from Kiev by a SBU Alpha Group ambush on 26/2/22 which would make that the frontline at the time.

        • joe90 says:

          A quick check indicates that Maj Gen John Albert B Dillard Jr was killed during the Vietnam War when his helicopter was shot down in 1970. He seems to be the last US General killed in action.

        • Leith says:

          Joe90 –

          Russians are denying that Tushayev was killed. He’s been seen in videos since with Kadyrov. Or is that more of Putin’s info ops?

          • joe90 says:

            Well if the Russian are denying it, how can it be there info op? Also do you think one man is running the whole war. Do you have a clue of the concept of chain of command?

          • Leith says:

            Joe90 –

            I have no clue as to whether Tushayev is alive or dead. Not sure what you are trying to say. Putin of course does not write the disinformation scripts and write the deep fake software code to manipulate the video. But he does take an interest in them at a high level. He’s a former KGB guy, disinformation is his forte, and it is his method of control over the Russian people.

            But you might be right. If it is a faked video it was probably Kadyrov that ordered it and not the Kremlin.

  8. walrus says:

    ……..and when Russia returns the favor, I suppose that is OK too?

  9. SRW says:

    Interesting read about two reporters who were captured near Kiev and held for two weeks. They consider themselves lucky to have survived.

    Russian troops held me captive at gunpoint for two weeks in Ukraine. Here’s what I learned.

  10. Klapper says:

    “These fellows are fair game.”

    There was a rumour that US military were working at an Ukrainian military intelligence centre in Lviv. If true I imagine those Americans would be “fair game”. And if a US intelligence gathering aircraft strays into Ukraine airspace, it would be “fair game” too.

  11. Artemesia says:

    1. Doesn’t that make the USA a belligerent in the conflict; therefore, fair game for whatever military action against USA that Russia deems appropriate?

    2. Last week the Committee for the Republic hosted Rep. Thomas Massie, who spoke on the lack of Constitutionalality of Biden’s involvement of US in a war without congressional discussion and consent.

    “Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) challenges the constitutional authority of President Joe Biden to involve the United States militarily as a co-belligerent or belligerent with Ukraine in its war with Russia and to defend every inch of NATO territory without a declaration of war by Congress.

    The Constitution — which the President and every Member of Congress is sworn to uphold as a condition of office — is censored by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties.”

    • TTG says:


      Is Massie living under a rock? The Senate and House of Representatives discussed, voted on and passed the Ukrainian support measures presented by Biden. They’ve even went further than Biden. That’s the Constitution working as advertised.

  12. Artemesia says:

    TTG, The Congressional Research Service (CRS) precis of the March 2 vote says:

    “This resolution demands an immediate cease-fire and the full withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory and expresses unequivocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also backs the continued use of sanctions to fully isolate the Putin regime economically and urges the United States and its allies and partners to deliver additional and immediate defensive security assistance to Ukraine.”

    However, both Chairman of the group John Henry in his overview and introduction, and Massie himself stated that the 425 – 3 vote was for a non-binding resolution, “Supporting the People of Ukraine;” not a declaration of war or a granting of war powers to the president.

    Massie led the three dissenting votes.

    Henry and Massie stated that the resolution

    “urged the United States to continue to supply military assistance to Ukraine in its ongoing armed conflict with Russia,”

    which, Massie understands, constitutes

    “systematic military support [that] makes the United States a co-belligerent under international law vulnerable to attack by Russia.”

    In his talk and audience exchange, the Committee for the Republic made reference to earlier American statesmen who counseled “neutrality” in preference to “seeking monsters to destroy.”

    Henry and Massie also explained that Biden inappropriately claimed the power to defend every inch of NATO under Article 5 of the treaty; arguing:

    “The March 2nd resolution also falsely affirmed President Biden’s extra-constitutional claim of power to defend every inch of NATO territory under Article 5 of the treaty.

    Article 11 requires constitutional processes be followed to implement Article 5’s policy that an attack on one is an attack on all.

    The historic foundation for that procedural requirement was spelled out:

    “To win the Senate Foreign Relations Committee support for NATO, Secretary of State Dean Acheson testified that Article 5 does not commit the United States to war without a congressional declaration, an understanding repeatedly affirmed in the Committee report on NATO and by Senator Majority Leader Tom Connally on the Senate floor. The War Powers Resolution explicitly prohibits treaty commitments from circumventing the congressional war power. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the supremacy of the two-chamber war power over the single-chamber treaty power.”

    The March 2nd non-binding Resolution was not a Congressional declaration of war and did not comply with either US Constitutional requirements nor the procedures of the NATO treaty.

    • TTG says:


      You forgot about the $13.6bn emergency military and humanitarian aid package for Ukraine and its European allies passing both houses in early March. That also included authorization for sanctions on Russia and Russian oligarchs.

      • Artemesia says:

        TTG, Are you arguing against yourself?

        At no time did the Congress vote a war resolution.
        There is no casus belli with the Ukrainian people, nor is the US treaty-bound to come to their defense (nor does NATO article 5 pertain).

        Biden’s actions, as well as those of a large majority of a deluded Congress, have put the American people at risk of justified attack in a situation where neutrality would have been the wisest, most humane, and most consistent with the principles laid by American Founders.

        One of Nuremberg’s major claims was ex post facto making a “war of aggression” a war crime, and charged Germany with that crime.

        Biden’s, and the US Congress’s actions have put the United States in a similar position.

        • TTG says:


          Of course there’s no war resolution. We’re not at war with Russia and we are not deploying forces to Ukraine. We are providing support to Ukraine to defend herself against a Russian invasion. That support was debated, voted on and approved by Congress. The President is acting within that approved level of support.

          • Artemesia says:

            Of course there was no abortion. She was never pregnant. He and she engaged in sexual intercourse during which his sperm fertilized her ovary. With the approval and financial support of Congress, Planned Parenthood provided support to her to have that fertilized ovary removed. But she was never pregnant because they were never married and never lived together as a family. He never gave her a ring and there was no wedding ceremony.

  13. Worth Pointing Out says:

    I don’t think the Russians deny that their soldiers are fair game to Ukrainian forces during an armed conflict with Ukraine.

    But recall how much hyperventilation took place when news reports (incorrectly) claimed that Russia was offering a bounty on US servicemen in Afghanistan.

    That was seen as an outrageous action on the part of the Russian government, which is why that fairy-tale was “leaked” in the first place.

    So while the death of Russian generals in an armed conflict is something that the Kremlin should be expected to shrug off, the news that the USA (which is not a party to this conflict) is aiding and abetting that endeavor is an altogether different issue.

    Nobody should expect the Russians to shrug that off, any more than anyone should expect the USA to shrug off the notion of a third party offering bounties on their soldiers.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Same thing when Iran was accused of providing components for shaped charges to Iraqi insurgents (or, by current US/UKR standards, not insurgents, but freedom fighters valiantly defending against an illegal invasion by blood thirsty American Orks). Of course, America is exceptional and not to be held to the same standards and principles as the rest of the world.

      • Matthew says:

        “Blowback” is issue for me. The calculus for those with actual intelligence (not me) about Russian strength must be that the Russians just have to take it.

        They may be right.

        Syria has taken years of Israeli air strikes and US occupation of the south and east. They have just taken it.

        War really clarifies actual power.

        Everything about this war has surprised me.

        Maybe the Russians will just pretend this isn’t happening because they can’t do anything about it.

      • Pat Lang says:

        I opposed the invasion of Iraq. You know that. I thought that the strike gainst Soleimano was unjustified. You know that also, but to call America’s soldiers “blood thirsty orcs” show what you are. Are you really EN?

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Col Lang,
          I am really EN. Yes, I know you opposed Iraq Kool Aid, etc. – which is one reason I am so surprised by your position on UKR, which has been brought us by the same people that brought us Iraq, etc. and for, generally, the same imperialistic notion of cracking eggs around the world to make the new wonderful US flavored omelette.

          I do NOT think US troops are blood thirsty Orks. I was assuming, for a moment, the Iraqi perspective on the invasion. I think US troops adhere to the highest standards and ethics possible in a war. That said, the US invasion of Iraq was on shakier justification than Russia’s invasion of UKR. I do not like hypocrisy b/c I think it makes us all stupider and less righteous when we ignore it, and it erodes faith in our system when we look at it.

          I also have a huge problem with all of the IOs for, more or less, the same reason. Once leadership has decided that the public consists of problematic morons and, therefore, the public can be and should be duped, we no longer have a republic for, of and by the people. I am a patriot first and foremost and, as far as I’m concerned, no cause should be so important that the government lies to and manipulates the people into agreeing to pursue a course of action. I include the media with the government b/c I see no separation in the messaging.

          I would have a lot less of a problem with the whole thing if we just proclaimed that we are exceptional and we are building an empire and we are going to rule the world, taking out anyone who disagrees. I would say, OK, then let’s do it right.

          I do not think the Russians are blood thirsty Orks either.They are just men fighting, as best they can, for the missions they’ve been handed based on decisions that their politicians have made, just as US troops did in Iraq (and wherever else they are sent).

          My issues with the whole situation, in no particular order, are 1. The blatant propaganda that we are being fed by our establishment 2. The risk US policy is causing us all to face 3. Making decisions based on popular delusions 4. Being more concerned with the security and borders of a distant foreign nation than with our own. 5. The general foolishness of doubling down on a lost cause 6. Demonizing of Russia/Russians b/c it limits the response set. Diplomacy becomes near impossible and a war to total destruction, which might include us, more likely.

          That is all.

          • Pat Lang says:


            Assuming the Iraqi attitude? Against the country that gave your family shelter?

          • Pat Lang says:

            I consider the Ukraine defensive war to be a just war. IMO our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not. I am not a pacifist and never was.

  14. Eric Newhill says:

    Col Lang,
    Out of love for the country that gave my paternal family shelter and opportunity that they would have never dread of in “the old country” – and the country that my maternal family played a role in founding.

    Our long term security and prosperity in an interconnected global community relies on our ability to understand how other perceive us and how they will react tactically and strategically to what we say and do.

    Sometimes the correct move is to simply kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out. But mostly situations call for less blunt and myopic approaches. I have a more reasoned and diplomatic view than I once did.

  15. Eric Newhill says:

    *dreamed* of in “the old country”
    F’ing spell check always second guessing me

  16. Eric Newhill says:

    Col Lang,
    We don’t live in UKR. We are not under attack.

    I do not consider the hot bed of corruption that is UKR to be worth the investment and risk. Russia considers the war a defensive one as well. So your party and Russia are at an impasse. I guess it’s just going to be WW3.

    I prefer sacrificing UKR, or at least the Donbas and Crimea region; not that is was ours to sacrifice. If you think that the Russians won’t stop at UKR, then I would say that counters your assertions that the Russian military is so pathetic. I would also say there is no proof of that and that, even if there was, it is a European problem. Let the Euros build their defenses. We should stay out of it.

Comments are closed.