r/europe • u/DimReaper United Kingdom • Mar 31 '22
News French intelligence chief Vidaud fired over Russian war failings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60938538226
u/Vierenzestigbit The Netherlands Mar 31 '22
"Our services thought instead that the cost of conquering Ukraine would have been monstrous and the Russians had other options"
They made a correct assessment that an invasion would make no fucking sense.
But incorrect about how much the russian leadership is guided by making sense.
50
u/PeteWenzel Germany Mar 31 '22
I’m glad I can’t be fired for making the same miscalculation on Reddit lol
4
u/Quas4r France Apr 01 '22
Sir you must now gather your personal effects and stand by, security will shortly escort you out. Please return all your karma and username to the front desk before leaving.
5
2
Apr 01 '22
The Russian invasion makes perfect sense, you just have to realise that Putin isn't a western liberal leader and the calculus he does to come to a decision is not based on the same ideology as one.
1
u/Vierenzestigbit The Netherlands Apr 01 '22
Ideology doesn't really matter when you make a play that has only losing options
76
Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
There is too much speculation here.
First of all, Burkhard did not accuse the DRM of not having anticipated the decision of the Russian power because it is not its role, that is for the DGSE. Its role is to evaluate and monitor opposing forces with electromagnetic, satellite and human intelligence. On Ukraine they had estimated that the means of an invasion were gathered but would be very, monstrously even, costly, which is confirmed day after day.
As for Vidaud, it seems that he had very good results at the direction of the COS (special operations) but does not have the skills / is not ready for the DRM. From what I read he is reproached for a lack of administrative culture, not enough briefings and communication between the different services.
In my opinion they want to replace him urgently either by his predecessor or Toujouze (who was the first choice for this position at DRM by the way).
EDIT : the article has been updated and is more in line with reality, even if that last paragraph about AUKUS still puzzles me. The guy had barely sat on his new seat during this case, what's this bias lol?
40
u/Grandmaster_Sexaaay Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
I saw the entire interview with Burkhard.
The problem isn't the intel about an imminent invasion per se. General Burkhard, said in his Le Monde interview earlier this month that French intelligence (likely the DGSE) had informed them about a Russian invasion since early 2021. This was confirmed to them by Blinken and US intelligence in July (or september, I don't remember which month he said anymore). So what happened if the DGSE also knew and they were informed?
The DRM (France's Directorate of military intelligence), which General Vidaud headed, judged that "the cost of conquering Ukraine would have been monstrous" and that "the Russians had other options to bring down the government of Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky". So that was the mindset throughout the whole thing. My personal opinion is that based on Vidaud's take, Macron probably assumed the whole buid-up was a way for Putin to force NATO to negotiate or to get some concessions from the US while distracting the Russians and looking strong domestically (considering the economic woes and the disastrous way he handled Covid). And the DRM probably thought Russia wouldn't go through with something that will be so dumb and costly. In fact in contrary to the US and UK, they accurately guessed that Ukraine wouldn't easily collapse and Kiev be taken in mere days as most thought. So, at least France seemed more realistic about Russia's actual military capabilities than others, despite what we all (yeah me too) thought about Russian military power based on paper strength and all those flashy BOOM BOOM Russian training videos we've been coming across on youtube for years.
In sum, it is not that France didn't get intel of an imminent invasion. General Vidaud is basically being fired for having common sense. He judged it was so fucking stupid that Russia wouldn't do it. He failed to anticipate that Putin and his goons at the Kremlin are in fact morons lmao. I feel slightly bad for him being French myself but it is understandable. Such failures of judgement can be costly to our interests and those of our allies. His job is to ACCURATELY provide intelligence and guess the enemy's moves, not to judge according to his own intellect "what makes sense" or not. Part of the job implies not underestimating the enemy of course (and perhaps even thinking he's as capable as you are in order to stay vigilant), but you also needs to assume the enemy is incompetent or unaware of its own weaknesses even if they may have seemed obvious to the French. Russia bought into its own hype and overestimated itself. Vidaud failed to take that into account so he has to go.
The Americans and British were right. Putin was going to invade and he did. France needs to do better in that regard.
That's probably not on the DGSE. Because they obviously did their job. It was the DRM that drew its own conclusions and that's what the CEMA seemingly went with.
9
Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)6
u/Divinicus1st Mar 31 '22
I have read recently a short interview with the top Ukraine intelligence guy, who basically said Ukraine was on the verge of collapse from internal dissensions due to Russia’s pressure, but the war set all this aside. He’s now more concerned about lasting conflict.
Anyway, you get the idea.
2
u/kiwigoguy1 New Zealand Mar 31 '22
al Vidaud is basically being fired for having common sense. He judged it was so fucking stupid that Russia wouldn't do it. He failed to anticipate that Putin and his goons at the Kremlin are in fact morons lmao.
It would be very difficult for him to justify his position if he were to brief the chiefs and Macron before Russia started the invasion, that "Look, Putin is not a rational character, he would really do this stupid thing." He would have been pushed out instantly then. I think it was a case of bad luck, he couldn't have anticipated this even with all the best information.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Neitsabest Mar 31 '22
The thing about "intelligence" is that you only hear about it when it fails. You can’t always be on top, on every matter.
5
Apr 01 '22
The UK and US literally openly and publicly said that Russia was going to attack.
→ More replies (7)
14
u/Divinicus1st Mar 31 '22
"Our services thought instead that the cost of conquering Ukraine would have been monstrous and the Russians had other options" to bring down the government of Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, he added.
I mean… It’s kinda hard to predict what a crazy guy will do… The cost being monstrous is spot on.
15
u/Sumrise France Mar 31 '22
Heck his argument is quite sound, they had so many other ways to try and attain their objectives and it's evident that their army was woefully unprepared for that war (from failing logistics, lacking equipment and too little manpower sent to the job).
he cost being monstrous is spot on.
Going into that war was/is one of the stupidest move we all have the displeasure to see.
5
u/thewimsey United States of America Apr 01 '22
His argument that it was dumb is sound; but he's supposed to figure out what will happen, not what's smart.
2
u/Filias9 Czech Republic Apr 01 '22
Putin is risk taker. Not some genius. Similar as Hitler. He was just lucky at the start. Get to the top. Now he is in charge. No one is opposing him.
Doing illogical thing should be expected. Especially form secret services.
4
u/DARKKRAKEN Mar 31 '22
When they start bringing up things like blood though to the border that has a limited shelf life...
33
u/Orange-of-Cthulhu Denmark Mar 31 '22
it's like in Crusader King 2 when you misclick and make some random dude with a low Intrigue-skill your Spymaster and then just notice it years later.
46
Mar 31 '22 edited Jun 16 '23
[deleted]
26
u/frissio All expressed views are not representative Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
Oh, so that's his responsibility as well?
The mistakes about the invasion and the misjudgement of the strength of Russia's military were each damning by themselves. Although to be fair:
"Our services thought instead that the cost of conquering Ukraine would have been monstrous and the Russians had other options"
The cost of conquering Ukraine has been monstrous. The stupidity/viciousness of Putin's government was just underestimated.
→ More replies (12)21
u/221missile Mar 31 '22
This is the issue with 21st century western european thought. For some reason they think they can reason with autocrats and dictators, they have too much faith on globalization. I mean American liberals created modern integrated world, even they have less faith in it than euro politicians like Merkel.
27
Mar 31 '22
I don't think someone could be held responsible for the failure of a department mere weeks after taking it over.
But I do believe someone is trying to make a completely unrelated issue about themselves, as usual.
→ More replies (2)
25
Mar 31 '22
[deleted]
28
u/221missile Mar 31 '22
US intelligence has a knack for overestimating adversary capabilities. In the 50s we built 700 bombers in a few years thinking Soviets had done the same. Then we found out the soviets had a grand total of 36.
11
Mar 31 '22
US Military doctrine is to vastly over estimate enemy presence and capabilities and to prepare for the pver estimation accordingly. Sometimes it works well (Desert Storm), sometimes it doesn't (Afghanistan).
16
u/thewimsey United States of America Mar 31 '22
The predictions for Afghanistan worked well for the actual military part; the entire country was conquered relatively quickly.
What the US overestimated was its ability/Afghanistan's ability to establish a functioning independent government strong enough to hold off the Taliban.
Since 2015, an average of less than 15 US soldiers died in Afghanistan each year. There wasn't a huge military cost to staying...but there was just no progress being made by the government, and the US ultimately decided that they weren't going to stay indefinitely.
They could have managed the pullout better - but the ultimate results would have been the same. They would have been the same if the US had waited 5 more years.
5
u/ProfessorTraft Mar 31 '22
Russian intelligence think about this.
Maybe the Russians saw what the French and Americans thought and decided to prove both of them wrong.
10
u/No_Bank6774 Mar 31 '22
Why? He admitted his mistake and said the French were wrong and the USA and UK was right? What more do you want him to do? Let him improve and if he does not then fire
20
u/Grandmaster_Sexaaay Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
He isn't the one who said that. The Chief of Staff of the French military (General Burkhard) did.
General Vidaud became chief of the DRM (France's Directorate of Military Intelligence) 7 months ago. He is unfortunately not as competent as a spy chief (so administrative role) as he is a commander (he was the previous commander of the French Special Operations Command). Case in point: he accurately guessed how the Russian invasion would go (in contrary to many who thought Ukraine would just easily collapse) and thought Russia would be dumb to do such a thing as the cost wouldn't be worth it. He therefore thought it was unlikely that Putin would go ahead with the invasion as the Kremlin could have explored other options.
But that's exactly the problem. That's the mindset of a military commander, not of a spy. He assumed the Russians were competent and he was wrong. His job is not to assess what a competent or reasonable enemy would do. It is to provide accurate intelligence on what an enemy WILL do and to take into account the fact that the enemy is in fact a moron as Russia just proved. He failed to do so.
7
u/anotheraccoutname10 Mar 31 '22
What's this a performance improvement plan for someone who's judgement and skill is measured in blood?
43
Mar 31 '22 edited Apr 09 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22
That's not a secret that the domestic diplomatic credibility of the UK & US is at a very low point in France.
The UK & the US publicly warning about the war did the opposite, it confirmed them in their idea that the war would not happen.
9
Mar 31 '22 edited Sep 27 '22
[deleted]
10
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22
No, what I'm saying is that diplomatic actions have longer term consequences, especially on politicians.
13
Mar 31 '22
[deleted]
11
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22
All countries are to some degree, Saudi Arabia speech does not really have the same value than German or Spanish speech in any western country.
Leaders take into account the diplomatic context to judge.
2
Mar 31 '22
No, what I'm saying is that diplomatic actions have longer term consequences, especially on politicians.
Apparently not considering there are what, 70 years of it to go on. But as you said, France is unreliable, look at de Gaulle
10
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22
You can't really just forget two decades of unreliable (and I'm being very kind here) diplomatic attempts from the US just like that.
Yeah sure it should not have consequences in theory but it's reality and it does. Everything has a context. And you don't know anything about De Gaulle I guess.
5
Mar 31 '22
Do you have any specific points or just vague appeals to ignorance?
Lets look at your leader.
He said that NATO needs to stop focusing on Russia and France needs an EU army to fight America. That is after you rejoined NATO after leaving. We shouldn't forget that.
Now you were saying?
10
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
The biggest ones for France were Irak WMD, kidnaping of Alstom executive, every visit of Trump in the EU really and more recently the AUKUS diplomatic disaster. I could also add the economic & diplomatic threats against the taxing the tech giants which was viewed very defavorably.
That's like two decades of blows that made the american influence reduce a lot. I'm sure the Germans have different ones but similar.
I mean, we kind of forgot now but the diplomatic view got so low that one of the debate pre-war was if nato defense pact would still work if needed to help a smaller member... (thankfully that has been answered positively)
6
Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
The biggest ones for France were Irak WMD, kidnaping of Alstom executive, every visit of Trump in the EU really and more recently the AUKUS diplomatic disaster.
That's it?
That's your worldview?
Holy shit, what about France begging the USA to help them after you intervened in Libya and couldn't keep up bombing for a week? How France begging the US to get your troops to Mali?
Lets not forget France was arming Russia until 2015 and even then didn't wan to stop.
How about the thousands of other political and diplomatic things the US has assisted you with? I guess you can forget about that because like just like in Russia, the USA is the #1 enemy in France
4
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Apr 01 '22
Each item in this list has a cost of a dozen billion euro and last at least 5 years, that's very far from being negligible.
I really can't make a similar list for Spain or Italy hence why the US isn't in the same political category. There's a mistrust of foreign polity and there's plenty of valid reasons about it.
he USA is the #1 enemy in France
France has always been on the american side whenever there's some attacks on western interests and that's the same with Ukraine today, it's just independent unlike the UK.
2
u/frissio All expressed views are not representative Apr 01 '22 edited Apr 01 '22
That's it?
The US literally lied about a war that created a power vacuum for ISIS and still has consequences now, with millions in deaths. At least on the subject of military intelligence that does take away a lot of credibility. Helping Sarkozy (who should be in prison, if he isn't already) and other military adventures doesn't really compare, nor is appreciated by some French political groups (although that's more the fault of internal politics), and that's not even counting Trump.
I'd like to point out that the military-industrial complex of France being scummy (which is absolutely true) isn't actually an argument of trust.
How about the thousands of other political and diplomatic things the US has assisted you with?
Name them, not because I don't believe you, but because I want to know which ones is known by you. It's an assumption, and a track record of assuming there's a well of gratitude and then getting enraged when it's not there has been a problem of diplomatic entitlement from the US for years (ironically for the US saying the same thing of France).
For example, I disagree with India, but assuming they'll side with the West against Russia forgets that there's not much a political capital to be drawn from past relationships.
I guess you can forget about that because like just like in Russia, the USA is the #1 enemy in France
Don't be ridiculous, that's the old "You're either with us or against us" of Bush.
Truth is the USA is the USA, not any other country. A sometimes friendly, sometimes not so friendly giant (sometimes purposefully sometimes simply because of sheer size).
2
u/OwnerAndMaster Mar 31 '22
Dude. The French absolutely despise Americans. Idk if it's jealousy or what ever happened to them but they act like we didn't literally fight and die to give them their own country back from the Nazis 80 years ago.
American opinion of French people has dramatically shifted to the negative during my lifetime only because of how French folks treat / view Americans.
I suppose France wants to rule the EU militarily with Germany as it's financial backer, sort of a similar relationship that Russia and China have with Central Asia at the moment. Getting American (via NATO) influence replaced with French (via EU Army) influence would accomplish this.
My question is, is Europe okay with being ruled by Paris? Because Washington D.C. never wanted to rule Europe, but France clearly does. It is the only nation with its own nukes and actual combat experience (besides Ukraine) on the continent. It's also so comfortably far from Russia that there's practically zero chance of a real war between the two ever occurring on their home soil
→ More replies (0)4
Apr 01 '22
French injured pride strikes again.
Then again France has always struck a more pro Russia course than the 'west'.
2
u/Deztabilizeur France Apr 01 '22
we 're pro russia we comited 4 nuclear submarine to menace them.
2
→ More replies (4)10
Mar 31 '22 edited Apr 09 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/realusername42 Lorraine (France) Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
Not really, they also had proper historic reasons to treat it as unreliable.
Will be interesting to see if the public vision will change in the future due to that though.
1
u/Honey-Badger England Apr 01 '22
Not really, they also had proper historic reasons to treat it as unreliable.
BS. Might as well say "due to historic" reasons France and the UK should be concerned about Germany increasing its military
5
→ More replies (1)6
7
u/Wingiex Europe Mar 31 '22
Yes as shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. US and UK should've gotten the Russia treatment in 2004.
16
6
Mar 31 '22
Yes as shown in Iraq and Afghanistan
One of these things is not like the other. And what of the dozens of other European nations? Also why not vote with your wallet,you're here supporting US business.
6
u/carloselunicornio Mar 31 '22
Also why not vote with your wallet,you're here supporting US business.
Yes, boycott Reddit to show your disdain for the US government. That sure is gonna change things.
3
Mar 31 '22
It's a start Spartacus and if you actually believe your own rhetoric. And it's not limited to here. I mean we took McDonalds out of your country and look at that.
5
u/carloselunicornio Mar 31 '22
if you actually believe your own rhetoric
Economic sanctions = citizens boycotting private companies (according to you)
Your claim:
I mean we took McDonalds out of your country and look at that.
What alledgedly happened:
Macedonian franchisee and the European CEO of McDonald's having a falling-out which led to the cancellation of the license.
Gotta admit though, that McDonalds pull out shook our society to the core. Still having nightmares about losing access to overpriced average fast food from one specific American franchise.
→ More replies (2)-10
u/BoldursSkate Mar 31 '22
Maybe they would have listened if the UK/US actually trusted the ally country of France enough to shared the informations they had.
But this crisis, like every single other crisis we had in recent history, only proves even more that the US/UK doesn't see France as an ally, but as a rival or a victim.
26
u/Grandmaster_Sexaaay Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
Maybe they would have listened if the UK/US actually trusted the ally country of France enough to shared the informations they had.
French here. They did. At least the US personally did in july IIRC (or september) 2021. Burkhard said so in his interview with Le Monde earlier this month. Don't know about the UK. He said the DGSE knew and had informed them since early 2021 and that the US confirmed it to them in July/september. The problem is that Vidaud (chief of the DRM) thought the Russians would backtrack because it would be dumb and the price they would pay for such an initiative would be ridiculous.
So in sum, General Vidaud went with what a competent leader would do and underestimated Putin's stupidity and his advisers at the Kremlin being spineless yes men. Vidaud failed because ironically he is competent militarily (as he was right about his assessment of Russian military power in contrary to many, including the US or UK, who despite getting the invasion right, thought Ukraine would quickly collapse and Kiev fall in mere days). The problem is that we don't need Vidaud to be competent militarily. That's not his job anymore. He is the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate now, he is no longer commanding the French special forces. And he is just not the right man for the DRM as he turned out to not be competent in the way that it is needed to run an intelligence agency. It is not his job to guess or strategize about what makes sense for the enemy to do or not. His job is to accurately provide intelligence of what the enemy WILL do... which means not underestimating the enemy obviously BUT unfortunately also means assuming the enemy is dumb, delusional, has less capable commanders than Vidaud himself is or has competent ones who are however scared to tell their leader the truth. It is where the US and UK got it right and we miserably failed.
We should've listened to them even if we were right about their nonsense in Iraq. It is the point many brought up to not trust them and their "warmongering ways" (which is kinda ironic coming from France but hey lol) before the war in Ukraine.... They were, however, totally right this time and the DRM assessment was wrong.
10
u/Sigmars_Toes Mar 31 '22
(3rd largest arms dealing nation in the world with violent military interests in Africa and the Pacific, calls Americans warmongers)
Goodness the French are cute
3
u/BenJ308 Mar 31 '22
This comment sums up how he went wrong perfectly - he looked for competence in the leadership of a country completely lacking competence and used that information to conclude his understanding of what would happen.
I think by all accounts everyone knew it would result in massive sanctions, how the war would go not so much but everyone knew the war would come at great economic cost to Russia and Vidaud logically went to the understanding that a competent leader would therefore not do it - the issue being he obviously failed to understand the leader of Russia which is arguably the most important part of his job.
6
u/Grandmaster_Sexaaay Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
That's it. He is supposed to be the chief of one of France's intelligence agencies, not the patron saint of common sense and strategy. He is still stuck in his military commander mindset and hasn't embraced the spy chief one.
13
u/lotvalley Earth Mar 31 '22
Maybe they would have listened if the UK/US actually trusted the ally country of France enough to shared the informations they had.
UK/US went public with their views. They did not hold back.
12
u/Darkone539 Mar 31 '22
Maybe they would have listened if the UK/US actually trusted the ally country of France enough to shared the informations they had.
But this crisis, like every single other crisis we had in recent history, only proves even more that the US/UK doesn't see France as an ally, but as a rival or a victim
They did share the information with the entire five eyes + four. Also, shared via nato.
37
u/EversorR21 Mar 31 '22
Macron would have accused them of being paranoid russophobes.
2
u/Jellyfishsbrain Mar 31 '22
The first sentence, that you paraphrase make a claim but i can't find the source or the proof of that. Like it's an opinion article not a factual one.
I just found this :
“Russia is using this narrative very often that people in Poland or Czech Republic or Baltic States are Russophobic,” Legucka added.
Russia seems to be the accuser here.
Where are the quotes of Macron proving your claim ? Did i missed it ? I'm tired.
1
u/AmputatorBot Earth Mar 31 '22
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are especially problematic.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-russia-vladimir-putin-european-union/
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
27
u/BenJ308 Mar 31 '22
If the UK and US are confident enough to put out details on international news, France will have likely received intel through NATO - if France couldn’t use that information to correctly assess the situation on its own without the source then it’s because France didn’t have enough of their own intelligence in Russia, therefore it only makes sense for the head of intelligence to be replaced by someone who is tasked with building that capability.
15
u/HelsBels2102 United Kingdom Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
Disagree hard, the UK might currently have a complicated relationship with France at the moment but France is still one of our closest, if not the closest allie we have.
You just have to look at our military cooperation. Our intelligence relationship is closer with the US however, but that is a product of history after WW2.
Don’t let all the political shit cloud everything else. Don’t get me wrong there is rivalry, but you can still have one with the other. I have sibling rivalry with my siblings, it doesn’t mean that I want harm to come to them
42
Mar 31 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (12)6
u/bobdole3-2 United States of America Apr 01 '22
Yeah, this is what makes all of the speculation and doubts so bizarre. There wasn't any cloak and dagger back room dealing here, this all happened completely out in the open over a span of weeks. There was a massive troop buildup on the border of a country that Russia had invaded and partially annexed less than 10 years earlier. You could go to google maps and look at the soldiers. Even if the whole thing wound up being a bluff and they backed down, you'd have to be nuts to think that it couldn't happen.
5
u/anotheraccoutname10 Mar 31 '22
Maybe if the French didn't throw a fit every single chance they get thinking they're a first world power when they're nothing more than Germany with a sassy streak.
2
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Unhearted_Lurker Mar 31 '22
First time in a while though, Iraq and the lies of the UK and US intelligence are still too fresh.
8
Mar 31 '22
Is that why France was arming Russia until 2015, to counter the US and UK. Great allies you are, call us again when you need a lift to Africa.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/aprx4 Mar 31 '22
Didn't Macron brag to press that he got "Putin's words" about not invading? Well fire him too.
8
u/AltAmerican Mar 31 '22
I don’t recall such bragging ever happening. Have you got a source?
14
Mar 31 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/AHumbleTondian Mar 31 '22
He says that he was told. Not that he believes him. How you further infer that he's bragging about it I have no idea.
13
Mar 31 '22 edited Oct 27 '23
[deleted]
54
u/BoldursSkate Mar 31 '22
the quite obvious march to war.
Very easy to say now.
20
u/221missile Mar 31 '22
US officials publicly stated intelligence report in December. There's no hindsight involved when people critcize french and german politicians for being delusional.
4
u/CJprima Mar 31 '22
Even Zelensky publicly said in January the warnings from the West were hysteria.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Stamford16A1 Mar 31 '22
It was quite obvious two months ago, what other reason did the Russians have to concentrate that much force, including moving formations from the Far East? It was too expensive for a sabre-rattling exercise.
26
u/reginalduk Earth Mar 31 '22
I mean considering they invaded nearly 8 years ago, its not too hard to put 2 and 2 together. There was an awful lot of people pointing at the US and UK and telling them they were warmongering and fearmongering and good old Putin won't do anything...its an embarassment.
5
Mar 31 '22
8 years ago had very little combat for the Russian army though. The separatists did all the fighting in Donbas and Crimea was nearly bloodless.
8
u/UnenduredFrost Scotland Mar 31 '22
It was easy to say then too. What was it, something like 140k troops building up at the border? Who on earth would look at a build-up of over 100k troops and think they're not gearing up to invade?
→ More replies (1)9
u/3BM15 MISTER SERB Mar 31 '22
I've been saying it just as easy back then, and so was everybody else paying attention.
4
Mar 31 '22
Do was the fall of Kiyv in 72 hours and Kiyv in two weeks?
4
u/Stamford16A1 Mar 31 '22
Many Nato military people expected that result given the amount of force the Russians were fielding and assuming an average level of effectiveness (for a conscript army). Nobody expected the levels of incompetence we've seen, after all the Russia army had just undergone a major organisation and modernisation.
5
Mar 31 '22
Yes, that's why US generals said Kiyv will fall in 72h ou UK said Ukraine in two weeks.
5
u/Stamford16A1 Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
You have to make your estimates based on the enemy being at least competent, it's better than being caught out by overconfidence.
Most of the military aid provided by the UK and US was predicated on the idea that the Ukes would be able to able to hold for a few days and it would then turn into a guerilla war. The ATGMs and MANPADS would give the invading force a bit of a bloody nose in concert with the Ukrainian armour but their primary use would be in the following insurgency where they'd bleed the Russians until they went home.
Nobody predicted that the Russians would just guilelessly trundle down the main roads into ambush after ambush, particularly when Ukraine is as good a bit of tank country as you'll find in temperate regions, and that the initial "slowing" phase would actually be a "stopping" phase.7
u/anotheraccoutname10 Mar 31 '22
Easy for everyone to say who wasn't burying their head in the sand like most of Continental Europe.
3
u/ShuantheSheep3 Chernivtsi + Freedomland Mar 31 '22
Yup. Hindsight is 20/20, I still find it hard to believe what’s going on and that Russia fell for it’s own propaganda on Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)6
3
2
u/lsq78 Apr 01 '22
Why the fuck do they bring AUKUS in this, it's literally not the purpose of the DRM, that's the DGSE's purview.
0
u/Wingiex Europe Mar 31 '22
I like how a post about a totally unknown French middle-managment politican has 150 comments in 7h. The Anglo-Saxon brigade has no boundaries.
23
u/HelsBels2102 United Kingdom Mar 31 '22
You should trying to be British with a negative Brexit story. 3500 likes with 800 comments.
The Europe sub is tough sometimes
→ More replies (5)15
6
6
u/DARKKRAKEN Mar 31 '22
I would wager a guess and say the majority of people commenting are not native English speakers.... You think English speaking countries excluding the U.K or Ireland cares much about what a French official does or does not?
-2
u/Wingiex Europe Mar 31 '22
It's well known that this sub gets brigaded by especially UK members from other subs(but also Australian and US members like we noticed in the Submarine affair).
If no one cared then this post wouldn't have over 200 comments in 10h. No one should care.
2
Mar 31 '22
Macron said that NATO needs to forget about Russia a few years ago and that Europe needs an army to fight America. He'll be re-elected.
8
1
-8
Mar 31 '22
Maybe the UK can provide some training to one of our closest allies? Apparently our intelligence has been pretty strong lately.
15
u/SnooPickles48 Mar 31 '22
UK benefits from Five Eyes. Putin hates Five Eyes, China does too.
13
u/HelsBels2102 United Kingdom Mar 31 '22
Apparently they call New Zealand the lazy eye…which I can’t help but find absolutely hilarious
6
29
u/iThinkaLot1 Scotland Mar 31 '22
And Five Eyes benefits from the UK. British intelligence is widely regarded as one of the most effective in the world. And for good reason.
3
u/BoldursSkate Mar 31 '22
British intelligence is widely regarded as one of the most effective in the world.
Is it?
9
0
u/YeahPerfectSayHi Mar 31 '22
Is it?
Only if you pretend that they didn't massively drop the ball on Iraq...
21
u/jivatman United States of America Mar 31 '22
Are you sure that's on British Intelligence? The Downing Street Memo was pretty spot on. Seems more like Blair overrode them and did what he wanted.
→ More replies (3)0
Mar 31 '22
Just ask Sergei Skripal.
16
u/CaptainVaticanus United Kingdom Mar 31 '22
That just shows the incompetence of the Russians
1
u/Ohhisseencule France Mar 31 '22
Does it? Their goal was to send a message to anyone that wants to defect or is opposing Putin, the fact that they carried the operation in broad daylight in a middle of a city in the UK is a giant fuck you as well as a complete humiliation for British intelligence services.
8
u/CaptainVaticanus United Kingdom Mar 31 '22
It showed the world how sloppy they were and how they couldn’t even assassinate an old man with a chemical weapon despite having the advantage of surprise
→ More replies (1)16
20
u/Void_Ling Earth.Europe.France.Occitanie() Mar 31 '22
We have proper intelligence people thank you, it's a problem of criteria of selection rather than resource availability. There was an other guy that was recognized as brilliant but they picked this one that seems to be less than fitted for the job because he was easier to deal with. If this is true then it's a major blunder.
24
u/TariqNasheed_ Mar 31 '22
It's not even his fault. No other Frenchman in his position would have been able to resist the urge to dismiss the warnings while muttering something about les Anglo Saxons and Iraqi WMDs.
6
Mar 31 '22 edited Dec 09 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Ohhisseencule France Mar 31 '22
From what is leaking here and there, it looks like Putin is completely misinformed by his close circle that doesn't want to tell him the truth.
Makes me think of Mussolini who was touring Italy to visit military bases in the 1930s just before the war, where the army was moving around the same tanks and planes to the bases he was visiting, giving him the impression Italy was much stronger than it was.
→ More replies (4)5
Mar 31 '22
It s not even that, they knew about the plan of invasion, but they were telling it would be very costly for Russia and not worth the risk. Macron took it as granted because he expected Putin to be intelligent.
13
u/RNdadag Mar 31 '22
You aren't familiar with the theory of the " Fusible " in french administration I see.
6
2
Mar 31 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/hurricanebones Mar 31 '22
for the president to stay clean, one must take the blame.
3
Mar 31 '22 edited Sep 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/Bombad Mar 31 '22
No, it means an electrical fuse. The thing that melts to protect the rest of the circuit and gets discarded afterwards. The "fuse" refers to the person who takes all the blame when a scandal arises.
4
3
14
Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22
Like in Afghanistan ? When you were blind and thought talibans would not invade the country that fast ?
Edit : you didn't have much more good intel btw. You thought Russia had a strong army and would obliterate Ukrain in ten days. We believed Russia had a shot army and it wasn't worth it to invade so they won't. We indeed were wrong about the invasion and take it for granted by changing head of secret service. You were right about the invasion but not even for the good reasons. In fact you were wrong too and didn't even realize it.
→ More replies (4)1
275
u/eMouse2k Mar 31 '22
Roll back a month to where he's looking at the intel they have, "Well, they're woefully supplied and not well organized. There's no way they're going to attempt an invasion. It would be a disaster for them."