It seems to me that US intelligence did to proper thing in loudly declaring the (accurate) plans of russian forces; though at what cost to their future sources remains to be seen.
If we can believe this story[1], some FSB guys were tasked throughout the years with bribing Ukranian military leaders to just lay down their weapons when the invasion begins. The FSB guys thought, "You're giving me cash to prepare for something (Ukranian invasion) that'll never happen, and you don't expect a receipt? Wahey, call the Mercedes dealership, and look up villas on the Black Sea coast!". And when Putin told them the invasion was going to happen, they panicked, and thought how to prevent it from happening and their embezzlement to be caught, "If we leak the plans to CIA, then Putin might get cold feet.". That's why the US seems to have been very well informed about it.
[1] http://www.thelowdownblog.com/2022/03/is-putins-invasion-fai...
In any case, this whole reply thread is off-topic to the article (which is about hunger, which will be real whoever provoked the war in reality and people's messed up's minds) and it's because top commenter is butthurt about one word...
I'm not sure this would be as controversial if posters considered that it is possible for both 'sides' to be wrong. Of course the article has a way to frame the issue. It exists on one 'side' of the issue.
Similar to how these shortages are largely blamed on the war, rather than the sanctions or the pandemic restrictions.
It isn't just the (perhaps misplaced) controversy that I find interesting here. It is the constant transitioning from one crisis to the next, each one with economic implications. A cynical conspiracy theorist might even wonder if these crises are manufactured to suit these economic ends. Is attributing motive even important? We are here now, dealing with the results.
Just the same, the constant state of emergency demanded by these fear promotions and the short attention span of those who indulge them does remind me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.
Seems to me Russia blundered pretty badly. Even if it had been as easy as they were assuming they would always come out of this having paid an extremely heavy toll diplomatically and economically. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.
It explains why thy were willing to risk such harsh consequences.
>I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.
They were using other means in Ukraine to avoid full scale war for decades, but loosing badly at them (eg politics, manipulation, trade offers, ect)
That 8 years comes from when Russia annexed Crimea. It was Russia that has been doing all they could to provoke Ukraine into seeking protection from Russia.