Ukraine: questions to Intelligence and politicians.
While the situation in Ukraine is extremely liquid and the quantity of men and means for a real counter-offensive is beginning to emerge, I dream of being able to ask a couple of questions to the Intelligence and the politicians who have dealt with (and are dealing with ) of the question.
First let's see what happens: the Ukrainians used propaganda against the Russians (who think they are the masters, but evidently they are not) to make them concentrate their forces on Kherson, and then they launched themselves on Kharkiv, also taking an important railway junction which allowed the Russians to move their logistics.
They fielded a lot of people, as they fight day and night. It is necessary to fight day and night for days
- drug the soldiers. It works, but after two or three days delirium and hallucinations come, so you don't send them to the cities.
- proceed to jump over, as the English say: by day the even brigades and by night the odd ones. It's also cheaper because it only requires half the men to be equipped with goggles, but it requires twice as many men.
Having finished cleaning up the Kherson area, they have little to do because the river becomes their enemy. But they have a possibility that would be deadly for Putin: to attack Krimea. It would be deadly not because of the strategic ports, but because politically it would be the end of Putin. His internal adversaries would eat him up.
Now let's go to the questions.
The whole world was convinced that Russia was the second strongest army in the world, after the American one. And we weren't convinced by chance: we were convinced because ALL the intelligence experts agreed.
What we are seeing in this war tells us of an army that if all goes well is the fourteenth/fifteenth. They are being beaten, or at least fought on an equal footing, by a country of 40 million people with a GDP of the Veneto region, "strengthened" by less than 1% of NATO military spending.
It may also be true that Valerii Zaluzhnyi is a genius, but after all he comes from the same academies of the Russian generals. Where does superiority arise?
Something is wrong. Because it wasn't just Orsini who was convinced that Russia had "the second largest army in the world".
We can easily understand Putin's need for nationalist propaganda, and his need to overrate Russia. But here we are talking about the whole world, about all the intelligence services on the planet. Even the allies believed it: India has been buying Russian arms for 30 years now, China has used them as a basis for building its own.
And today we discover that their tanks are made to amplify the effect of mines, throwing the turret in the air:
This is World War II stuff. It means that they have never tried to design. And the communications clearly suck. And the logistics. And the strategy that is missing. Air Force not received. Inaccurate missiles. Satellites that take a picture every 24 hours. They have occupied areas already occupied by pro-Russian guerrillas, de facto.
Who told all of the West that that pile of junk led by undertrained soldiers was a hi-tech army?
The intelligence.
I have a question, then: how do you justify yourself? If we had known earlier that the Russian military sucked so much, it would have changed a lot. Because you could send advisers and you could end the game much earlier. You could send Himars, Pkz2000 and everything much earlier, start a humanitarian operation, and go: with that stuff that we've seen, the Russians had no hope.
And whoever says Muh Nuclear should understand that now we should ask ourselves how much of the Russian nuclear apparatus really exists.
And it would be nice to have an answer you can trust , gentlemen of intelligence.
The second question I have is for politicians. Let's also assume that after a heavy defeat the military eliminates Putin and the new Russian government tends towards democracy.
Suppose you win. And suppose there is now a “pro-Western” government in Russia and the war is over. Good.
What are you doing now? How will you handle the aftermath? Shall we start buying gas again? Because the gas is still there and it's still cheap: on the contrary, maybe they have to give it away for free as war damages.
And so it's time for a clear answer: do you have a plan? And if the plan includes Putin going down, do you have a plan for after? Is everything back to how it was? Do you buy gas? Is Russia Cursed Forever?
It is not clear, that is, whether Putin's fall is what we want or not. It is known that Zelensky wants it, that he could at least bomb Crimea if he can get far enough south, but what do we want?
If Putin fell and the Russian population rose up, which everyone seems to be hoping for, what would happen? How would we behave?
This is, essentially, the point: you can't win if you don't know what you want. We're currently focused on getting through the winter, but what if the Ukrainians start launching neptune missiles on Crimean ports, or just besiege it by cutting off the water, at which point Putin falls?
What's the plan? Is there a plan?
There is a narrative going around. But underneath there are doubts about these narratives. That no secret service has ever noticed that the Russian army is a pile of garbage is already strange. That no one wonders or knows what he would do if he wins makes matters worse.
It would be better to clarify these things.