Defensive tactics from the modern history of urban warfare(mwi.usma.edu)
mwi.usma.edu
Defensive tactics from the modern history of urban warfare
https://mwi.usma.edu/defending-the-city-an-overview-of-defensive-tactics-from-the-modern-history-of-urban-warfare/
414 comments
It can be, relatively speaking, quite easy to defend a city, the Syrian rebels in East Aleppo became quite good at it pretty fast, the same goes for the rebels in the Damascus neighbourhood of Jobar (for this latter example I recommend this video [1], it gives a general idea of how it well went; bear in mind that it was filmed from the pov of the government forces).
The problem is that the attacking force at some point realises that the defendants are pretty well dug in and the commanders of those attacking forces also realise that one of the few solutions available in order to achieve victory is to, almost quite literally, flatten the city. That's what happened in East Aleppo (with the help of the Russian airforce), that's what happened in Jobar, too. Not sure if the flattening of Kyiv would be the best thing for the Ukranian people going forward.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZXPhmR7lQ
The problem is that the attacking force at some point realises that the defendants are pretty well dug in and the commanders of those attacking forces also realise that one of the few solutions available in order to achieve victory is to, almost quite literally, flatten the city. That's what happened in East Aleppo (with the help of the Russian airforce), that's what happened in Jobar, too. Not sure if the flattening of Kyiv would be the best thing for the Ukranian people going forward.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZXPhmR7lQ
The other choice is a siege. See the Siege of Sarajevo [1]. A dramatically numerically inferior force (by 5:1) laid siege to a numerically superior, but poorly equipped, force that was intermittently supported by the UN/NATO. It lasted just under 4 years, and ended in a stalemate and some absolute horror stories from survivors.
And of course if a city under siege cannot get sufficient resources in and is not self sufficient (let alone while under siege), then a siege can end a conflict extremely quickly.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo
And of course if a city under siege cannot get sufficient resources in and is not self sufficient (let alone while under siege), then a siege can end a conflict extremely quickly.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo
Time for a (drone) Kyiv Airlift? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade#Start_of_the_B...
Not easy to do an airlift when your opponent has air superiority. The United States had guaranteed air corridors to Berlin.
Although not suited to an airlift of heavy items, a swarm of drones would be super difficult to defend against in an urban environment. Have them drop thermite or pipebombs or just draw fire to find enemy positions, or distract them during an assault.
Putin doesn't have the time for a siege.
The propaganda machine still speaks of a special operation to liberate Ukraine.
You can't keep up this picture for long. There are too many communication channels between Ukranians and Russians that will chip away at this warped image of reality.
The propaganda machine still speaks of a special operation to liberate Ukraine.
You can't keep up this picture for long. There are too many communication channels between Ukranians and Russians that will chip away at this warped image of reality.
Cutting aqueducts in most cases means people running out of water in short time, considering the actual whether. While it's perfectly possible to store non marginal quantity of water most people do not do that in cities, exactly where water is less available. Contaminating water with mild bacteria not enough to kill 99% of the people, but enough to reduce their capacity is another quick and easy task, water tend to be much controlled nearby sources, not as much below, sure boiling it suffice, but boil demand energy and in most cases having energy in a city it's not that easy, not much wood, almost nothing to produce it in place. Food might last longer but not that longer: most people are not really combatant and do not want to fight till victory or death.
Consider a thing: modern society is hyper fragile respect of the past, especially cities where very few people can block many others, almost the opposite of a very large slice of human history. Also modern society are not much ideologically propelled and widespread corruption of most actual government do make most people thinking that one or another does not change almost anything. There is a minority of fanatic, that's what they are, nor really Patriots, who accept a fight at any price, but those tend to be unpopular in their own people even more than in the enemies.
Also smart people know that there is no point in fighting a lost war, it's better to inject themselves in the winning order to undermine it slowly from the inside.
Consider a thing: modern society is hyper fragile respect of the past, especially cities where very few people can block many others, almost the opposite of a very large slice of human history. Also modern society are not much ideologically propelled and widespread corruption of most actual government do make most people thinking that one or another does not change almost anything. There is a minority of fanatic, that's what they are, nor really Patriots, who accept a fight at any price, but those tend to be unpopular in their own people even more than in the enemies.
Also smart people know that there is no point in fighting a lost war, it's better to inject themselves in the winning order to undermine it slowly from the inside.
Except that Ukrainians know, that they will not have independence as a country, if they lose this. They don't want to be governed from Moscow by the Kremlin. It is not over until it is over. As long as they resist, they inflict a cost on Putin and they know that. They might suffer lots of losses, but they are aware of that and still fighting. Every Russian tank, helicopter, other vehicle they destroy costs a lot of money to replace. For Ukrainians it is a cost of lives, for Russia it is a severe financial loss. If they manage to make it a disaster for Putin, then we might see Putin being replaced and this whole offensive collapse.
And they will have their population enlisted to fight Putins next war for him, like what happens to Belarus and Chechnya right now.
Amazing statement by a Belarusian lieutenant colonel:
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/149791120069228954...
English translation here:
https://pastebin.com/48aVmMqA
Amazing statement by a Belarusian lieutenant colonel:
https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/149791120069228954...
English translation here:
https://pastebin.com/48aVmMqA
They have already lost even before the war begun simply because they do not have enough firepower and autonomy to win. So their best choice is not try fighting to the death resulting in a totally devastated country that need to be rebuilt, under the winners rules and condition, with their best citizen already dead, but welcome the winner (not joking) to force him to avoid much damage to the invaded country, because their own military and population will not accept a war any longer, and being able to offer a working country that need people who know how things work there to remain afloat, so the enemy can only accept to a certain extent local rulers.
Doing so they:
- preserve their country in the short term
- keep a very little bit of sovereignty they will not get from a full defeat in the short-medium term
- have room to sabotage internally the enemy in the mean-long run
The sole that benefit form a strenuous resistance in Ukraine is actually the west who get a weakened Russia at the expense of Ukrainian life and richness. The very same that happen with Arab springs, Colorful revolution etc: previous dictatorship get weakened or destroyed to be substituted by others, always at people expense, against people interest.
Did you try to imaging who benefit from Ukrainian war? Try to depict the global picture:
- the USA and UK that have very deep social unrest due to the economic crisis, the covid governance etc inducted by the push to the neoliberal Green New Deal/Great Reset have them silenced because now there is a war;
- the EU that have started to consider established mutually benefit partnership with the Russian Fed. now fall back under the NATO umbrella, against EU interests since the partnership with the USA is well established but it's not fair for EU, while a new one with Russia since they desperately need a partner and China is really not a friend would be far more balanced;
- EU gov, facing similar unrest than UK/USA ones now have something else to divert public opinion angry;
- Russian gov can justify growing domestic poverty and oppression "due to the war";
- China have the occasion to deeply tie Russia as the sole reliable and strong partner, forcing Russian to cooperate on hi tech military gear and more natural resources, probably enough to overpower USA;
So the real winner here are the Chinese, without even a fight. The second winner are the western neoliberals, especially those from WEF/IMF etc since the Green New Deal became an even more important priority WHILE the classic energy sources remain in a very strong position. The third only partial winner is the Putin entourage that winning a war means securing more years in power and more domestic power while actually securing their indefensible western side. The looser? Surely Ukrainian people, BUT ALSO EU people, and ultimately USA/UK people who have their unrest set aside unresolved because "of external priorities".
Remember to win a war the very first basic need is knowing who is your enemy...
Doing so they:
- preserve their country in the short term
- keep a very little bit of sovereignty they will not get from a full defeat in the short-medium term
- have room to sabotage internally the enemy in the mean-long run
The sole that benefit form a strenuous resistance in Ukraine is actually the west who get a weakened Russia at the expense of Ukrainian life and richness. The very same that happen with Arab springs, Colorful revolution etc: previous dictatorship get weakened or destroyed to be substituted by others, always at people expense, against people interest.
Did you try to imaging who benefit from Ukrainian war? Try to depict the global picture:
- the USA and UK that have very deep social unrest due to the economic crisis, the covid governance etc inducted by the push to the neoliberal Green New Deal/Great Reset have them silenced because now there is a war;
- the EU that have started to consider established mutually benefit partnership with the Russian Fed. now fall back under the NATO umbrella, against EU interests since the partnership with the USA is well established but it's not fair for EU, while a new one with Russia since they desperately need a partner and China is really not a friend would be far more balanced;
- EU gov, facing similar unrest than UK/USA ones now have something else to divert public opinion angry;
- Russian gov can justify growing domestic poverty and oppression "due to the war";
- China have the occasion to deeply tie Russia as the sole reliable and strong partner, forcing Russian to cooperate on hi tech military gear and more natural resources, probably enough to overpower USA;
So the real winner here are the Chinese, without even a fight. The second winner are the western neoliberals, especially those from WEF/IMF etc since the Green New Deal became an even more important priority WHILE the classic energy sources remain in a very strong position. The third only partial winner is the Putin entourage that winning a war means securing more years in power and more domestic power while actually securing their indefensible western side. The looser? Surely Ukrainian people, BUT ALSO EU people, and ultimately USA/UK people who have their unrest set aside unresolved because "of external priorities".
Remember to win a war the very first basic need is knowing who is your enemy...
People don't want to give up their whole nation and independence, just for some slim chance of getting back at the invading force, by sabotaging their actions in a conquered country. Once they allow the Kremlin to take over, they will have a hard time to get rid of them. There will be armed troops in the streets for years. Who doesn't do what they are ordered from Kremlin side will be replaced. "Just another Ukrainian."-style. Meanwhile Russia will have plenty of time to reinforce areas of control inside the conquered country, making it very hard or impossible to retake what was stolen. Ukraine's best chance for any independent future is to deal as much damage to the aggressor as possible.
Putin is a complete hypocrite, of course, because if he manages to take the Ukraine, then there will truly be no buffer country between him and NATO. Is he going to go insane again then, claiming, that for example Romania needs to be demilitarized? Then he takes that and claims the same for the next country? When does it stop?
If the result is a weakened Russia, then that's good. Empires governed by madmen and dictators should be weakened. We have no use for them in a modern world. In the end Putin will probably manage to reach the exact opposite of what he wants. He wants less threat of NATO, according to his own words, but with this unjustified attack, he has caused NATO partners to move closer together and he has inflicted a cost on his country, which will hopefully be significant enough to stand as a warning for other countries invading their neighbors.
China is probably as you say benefitting from all of this. The Chinese government probably is happy right now, that things escalated and that Russia is sanctioned. They can just watch it all play out and act as the "great peaceful bystander" calling for peace, giving themselves a "peace image", all the while they are still putting Uigures into "re-education" camps. It means, that they can dictate trade with Russia more, as Russia has less options. No one wants to buy your gas? Oh how sad! You can sell to us at reduced price! Only on the very surface Russia and China are friendly towards each other. China will take advantage of any economic situation it can take advantage of. There is however not much anyone can do about more trade between those two anyway. In my opinion it is better to do something now than allowing Putin to chip away at Europe.
Edit: And yes, I agree, Putin is the kind of dictator, who looks for outside trouble, when things inside are not going well. Typical dictator stuff. Nothing else is to be expected from him.
Putin is a complete hypocrite, of course, because if he manages to take the Ukraine, then there will truly be no buffer country between him and NATO. Is he going to go insane again then, claiming, that for example Romania needs to be demilitarized? Then he takes that and claims the same for the next country? When does it stop?
If the result is a weakened Russia, then that's good. Empires governed by madmen and dictators should be weakened. We have no use for them in a modern world. In the end Putin will probably manage to reach the exact opposite of what he wants. He wants less threat of NATO, according to his own words, but with this unjustified attack, he has caused NATO partners to move closer together and he has inflicted a cost on his country, which will hopefully be significant enough to stand as a warning for other countries invading their neighbors.
China is probably as you say benefitting from all of this. The Chinese government probably is happy right now, that things escalated and that Russia is sanctioned. They can just watch it all play out and act as the "great peaceful bystander" calling for peace, giving themselves a "peace image", all the while they are still putting Uigures into "re-education" camps. It means, that they can dictate trade with Russia more, as Russia has less options. No one wants to buy your gas? Oh how sad! You can sell to us at reduced price! Only on the very surface Russia and China are friendly towards each other. China will take advantage of any economic situation it can take advantage of. There is however not much anyone can do about more trade between those two anyway. In my opinion it is better to do something now than allowing Putin to chip away at Europe.
Edit: And yes, I agree, Putin is the kind of dictator, who looks for outside trouble, when things inside are not going well. Typical dictator stuff. Nothing else is to be expected from him.
Is actual Ukraine in independent nation? Did you try to see actual gov history? Hint: they are actors, their last work was a series about a new Ukrainian government (start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People the actual real President as the main actor of the fictional president).
If they decide to impromptu join Russian Federation say "thanks, you free us from a western-made puppet government" Russians can't remain in arm there, just like they aren't for similar reasons remained in Kz even with the mocked-up CSTO umbrella. Of course their will remain now if a Resistance start to operate, in that very case they have a perfectly licit and justifiable reason to be there: "Russian people, we the government, goes to Ukraine to free the country from the western nazi-armed oppressors (witch is actually a real fact, since both USA and UK do not denied that they have armed and trained Azov battalion and co) and we have to stay because such bad crooks still plague the country bombing, raping and killing people". They can't tell the same if mass of locals citizens welcome them and formally demand to be part of the Federation. In that case the Russian surely keep a bit of grip, but can't really establish a puppet regime with strong military presence. They need to be soft, and being soft the locals do have power to organize slowly and slowly form their own government, a really democratic one, powerless at first but a small growth at a time more influential, enough to rule in a decades.
Also think twice and twice again about China profit: so far despite it's enormous growth China can't really overpower USA, yes they can build many more low tech ships, but they can't military confront the USA not on the sea not on abroad lands. With Russian natural resources AND Russian tech they can in few years, and they already need to counter the USA because just to eat they need to be in South America, APAC and Africa, witch means they need to control seas, a thing that USA and UK can't tolerate because it's the sole remaining imperial power they have, a power so far no other nation can menace.
For USA keep Europe means remain the tech leader since they can drain EU resources and control it's development, but keeping EU at the price of giving China the Russian Federation means that all needed basis for a III world war are finally made and sealed. Avoid escalation in that case is next to impossible, remember that in both WWI and WWII all nations involved do not, do never wanted a real world war, things just escalate to it. Do you think it's worth risking the end of humanity just for the profit of some cancer of humanity actually ruling on their own people back in all world power, both formal dictatorship like China or formal but not substantial Democracies like Russian and USA, and France and Italy and Germany etc?
If they decide to impromptu join Russian Federation say "thanks, you free us from a western-made puppet government" Russians can't remain in arm there, just like they aren't for similar reasons remained in Kz even with the mocked-up CSTO umbrella. Of course their will remain now if a Resistance start to operate, in that very case they have a perfectly licit and justifiable reason to be there: "Russian people, we the government, goes to Ukraine to free the country from the western nazi-armed oppressors (witch is actually a real fact, since both USA and UK do not denied that they have armed and trained Azov battalion and co) and we have to stay because such bad crooks still plague the country bombing, raping and killing people". They can't tell the same if mass of locals citizens welcome them and formally demand to be part of the Federation. In that case the Russian surely keep a bit of grip, but can't really establish a puppet regime with strong military presence. They need to be soft, and being soft the locals do have power to organize slowly and slowly form their own government, a really democratic one, powerless at first but a small growth at a time more influential, enough to rule in a decades.
Also think twice and twice again about China profit: so far despite it's enormous growth China can't really overpower USA, yes they can build many more low tech ships, but they can't military confront the USA not on the sea not on abroad lands. With Russian natural resources AND Russian tech they can in few years, and they already need to counter the USA because just to eat they need to be in South America, APAC and Africa, witch means they need to control seas, a thing that USA and UK can't tolerate because it's the sole remaining imperial power they have, a power so far no other nation can menace.
For USA keep Europe means remain the tech leader since they can drain EU resources and control it's development, but keeping EU at the price of giving China the Russian Federation means that all needed basis for a III world war are finally made and sealed. Avoid escalation in that case is next to impossible, remember that in both WWI and WWII all nations involved do not, do never wanted a real world war, things just escalate to it. Do you think it's worth risking the end of humanity just for the profit of some cancer of humanity actually ruling on their own people back in all world power, both formal dictatorship like China or formal but not substantial Democracies like Russian and USA, and France and Italy and Germany etc?
> Is actual Ukraine in independent nation? Did you try to see actual gov history? Hint: they are actors, their last work was a series about a new Ukrainian government (start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People the actual real President as the main actor of the fictional president).
OK, we can stop repeating Kremlin propaganda now. No one cares about the previous job of the democratically elected president and it is no new information anyway. Apparently in this dark hour, he is doing a fine job. If you want another example for an actor getting to a high position in politics, take Schwarzenegger. Actors probably do have some skills and qualifications, which are of good use in politics. For example they are used to being in front of the camera. With sufficient popularity, they are also used to talking to many people. Being an actor furthermore does not mean, that for your whole life you must remain an actor.
You appeal to stereotypes, trying to downtalk the elected Ukrainian president. As if actors in general were incapable of ever entering politics or government. This is clearly wrong as shown by other examples.
OK, we can stop repeating Kremlin propaganda now. No one cares about the previous job of the democratically elected president and it is no new information anyway. Apparently in this dark hour, he is doing a fine job. If you want another example for an actor getting to a high position in politics, take Schwarzenegger. Actors probably do have some skills and qualifications, which are of good use in politics. For example they are used to being in front of the camera. With sufficient popularity, they are also used to talking to many people. Being an actor furthermore does not mean, that for your whole life you must remain an actor.
You appeal to stereotypes, trying to downtalk the elected Ukrainian president. As if actors in general were incapable of ever entering politics or government. This is clearly wrong as shown by other examples.
No, I appeal to observation, take another one, for instance: https://www.energyintel.com/download?issueId=0000017e-2c65-d... about Kazakhstan, is this Russian propaganda? Does it tell the same story of our "pravda"? To me it clearly state that Kz energy system is in western hand thanks to a local dictator, himself also voted, formally, like another dictator name Adolf, like another one name Erdogan or another more named Orban, or another one named Kaczyński just to name few of them.
Some are just puppet, some gain power and became dictator but no dictatorship born strong and powerful and very rarely born alone, without external help of some interested actor.
Long story short if you consider actual Ukrainian government a Democratic one, and even one that act well... That's not Russian but USA propaganda and that's hold the same level of truth, around 0... I told you another story: while living in France I'm Italian, actual Italian government formally is a Democratic one, and following the press it acting well. Following many Citizens believes, mine included, as a nephew of two Italian Partisans from WWII is that's actual head of state is a dictator that must be arrested for high treason, embezzlement, participation in crimes against humanity, along his public-private entourage. ANY civil servant that do not act accordingly must be considered partner and so at minimum banned from any public office for life. Did you have any suspicions about that? Or, following the press you read you imagining a Democratically elected (he was not, but that's by law, to avoid directly voting head of states in a way a power of the State can remove the other and they surveil each others avoiding the need of a civil war in case one try to grab power) and well acting leader?
We ALL live in some propaganda and the sole way to know what's "true enough" and "false enough" is summing different propaganda eliciting what can be true and what can't. Just to talk again about Italy: there is now a right polemic about a cut scene from the game War Thunder published on the main national headline (TG1 and TG2, like BBC in UK, formally) as a filmed scene of Kiev bombing. Some photos of crying mothers in tear is published saying they are Ukrainian mothers now while the source of the image came from 2014/Euromaidan massacre, so from the opposite side of the front.
Since I'm not there, nor I know people there I can't say what's really going on, but I read enough to know what's our propaganda and the other side one, also I see the effect. So I form my opinion and suggest anyone trying to do the same before fighting for their own enemy, against their own interest. I know many will never been able to do so, but on HN I hope there is a cohort of people who might be if at least pushed a bit to look for some information instead of blindly drinking the headlines of one or another side...
Some are just puppet, some gain power and became dictator but no dictatorship born strong and powerful and very rarely born alone, without external help of some interested actor.
Long story short if you consider actual Ukrainian government a Democratic one, and even one that act well... That's not Russian but USA propaganda and that's hold the same level of truth, around 0... I told you another story: while living in France I'm Italian, actual Italian government formally is a Democratic one, and following the press it acting well. Following many Citizens believes, mine included, as a nephew of two Italian Partisans from WWII is that's actual head of state is a dictator that must be arrested for high treason, embezzlement, participation in crimes against humanity, along his public-private entourage. ANY civil servant that do not act accordingly must be considered partner and so at minimum banned from any public office for life. Did you have any suspicions about that? Or, following the press you read you imagining a Democratically elected (he was not, but that's by law, to avoid directly voting head of states in a way a power of the State can remove the other and they surveil each others avoiding the need of a civil war in case one try to grab power) and well acting leader?
We ALL live in some propaganda and the sole way to know what's "true enough" and "false enough" is summing different propaganda eliciting what can be true and what can't. Just to talk again about Italy: there is now a right polemic about a cut scene from the game War Thunder published on the main national headline (TG1 and TG2, like BBC in UK, formally) as a filmed scene of Kiev bombing. Some photos of crying mothers in tear is published saying they are Ukrainian mothers now while the source of the image came from 2014/Euromaidan massacre, so from the opposite side of the front.
Since I'm not there, nor I know people there I can't say what's really going on, but I read enough to know what's our propaganda and the other side one, also I see the effect. So I form my opinion and suggest anyone trying to do the same before fighting for their own enemy, against their own interest. I know many will never been able to do so, but on HN I hope there is a cohort of people who might be if at least pushed a bit to look for some information instead of blindly drinking the headlines of one or another side...
> You can't keep up this picture for long. There are too many communication channels between Ukranians and Russians that will chip away at this warped image of reality.
Especially that on Putin's side, they are only "defending separatist regions", just about any picture of the conflict contradicts the official narrative, there's no way to spin it, they can't even talk about any victories.
Especially that on Putin's side, they are only "defending separatist regions", just about any picture of the conflict contradicts the official narrative, there's no way to spin it, they can't even talk about any victories.
Doesn't apply to Gaza apparently
The problem with Gaza is as one of my friends from the Middle East summarized it: no government*
really cares about the Palestinians.
Sure, they'll use them for propaganda purposes, and to rail against Israel, but when it comes to taking actions with limited resources? Well, they don't care that much.
* Except maybe Iran. But there are a lot of mixed motivations (and religious baggage) between Hamas and Iran.
Sure, they'll use them for propaganda purposes, and to rail against Israel, but when it comes to taking actions with limited resources? Well, they don't care that much.
* Except maybe Iran. But there are a lot of mixed motivations (and religious baggage) between Hamas and Iran.
Flattening Kyiv is Putin's last resort: he can't retire and he can't drag things for too long, but should he give the order to level the city and reports would slip under the censorship to Russian people and the rest of the world, that would surely be the first day of his demise.
Kiev is the cradle of Russia. It would be like the US flattening London.
+10 (if I could). For those less familiar with the role of Kiev in Russian history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus
Dan Carlin's Hard Core History has an AMAZING history of Russia... I cant find which cast, but check out his site, as he has free episodes, but in addition - he puts some of the other eps in his shop on sale, for free!
I just got these:
https://imgur.com/a/XkgvjQf
https://www.dancarlin.com
I just got these:
https://imgur.com/a/XkgvjQf
https://www.dancarlin.com
If they flatten Kiyv.. I don’t know. I would want my country to send in troops.
Would you volunteer to go?
“When do you enlist?” is the ultimate skin in the game test. It’s amazing how quiet things get when you ask that question, whether we’re talking about Iraq / Afghanistan 20 years ago or this conflict now.
Unless you have been trained for, or have actual experience in a warzone, you're going to be more of a liability than an asset.
[deleted]
Yes. My country is next on Putin's list.
Why does it matter?
If you are willing to send other people to die for you then you should be prepared to make the same sacrifice as well because your name may very will come up in the draft.
If your age is between 18 and 35.
This is extremely bad and distracting analogy.
Almost all analogies are bad and distracting, to some extent.
Itoh, I do think it gets across, coarsely, a point about the sentiment scape. Russian people's tolerance of Ukrainian suffering can't be taken for granted. Kievans haven't attacked them, or given Russians much reason to hate them. Hate is a necessary ingredient for that kind of war.
Itoh, I do think it gets across, coarsely, a point about the sentiment scape. Russian people's tolerance of Ukrainian suffering can't be taken for granted. Kievans haven't attacked them, or given Russians much reason to hate them. Hate is a necessary ingredient for that kind of war.
It's great to know someone else (coarsely) feels this way.
Once people introduce analogies, I give up as they
a) become a discussion about the analogy, or
b) result in further analogies, and further discussions not about the original argument.
'Bad and distracting'. Yes.
'Bad and distracting'. Yes.
Hate is a necessary ingredient...
Not when there is control fraud. Very few Americans hate Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans, Palestinians, Vietnamese, etc.
Not when there is control fraud. Very few Americans hate Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans, Palestinians, Vietnamese, etc.
But Russia just lightly bombing its own cradle is to be expected?
We can see right now how much they like it...
I wonder how much he cares about his reputation. Do the Russian people believe the lies?
If enough human rights abuses show up in media, NATO will grow a pair and get directly involved. That's probably Putin's biggest fear, and why he blusters so much. He thinks the west is decadent and cowardly. So far, in this case, he's been right.
The thing about western democracies is that they respond to public sentiment. If the populations are seething with anger, they will want blood. Especially the Americans.
The thing about western democracies is that they respond to public sentiment. If the populations are seething with anger, they will want blood. Especially the Americans.
Very unlikely NATO (overall) would get involved even if there are serious atrocities. That’ts a fast path to nuclear war.
They’ll fortify heavily and the moment any Russian steps onto NATO member soil, they’ll be repelled though.
NATO is about mutual self defense, not invasion. Ukraine is caught in the middle between Russia and NATO.
They’ll fortify heavily and the moment any Russian steps onto NATO member soil, they’ll be repelled though.
NATO is about mutual self defense, not invasion. Ukraine is caught in the middle between Russia and NATO.
Putin threatens nuclear war whenever he wants something. Nobody believes it. You think Putin will commit suicide - both for himself and his people - over Ukraine, which by now quite obviously doesn't want him, even to his own citizens?
You assume too much about Russia and Putin. Historically, the wests lack of understanding of motives and hard lines for Russia has almost caused several nuclear annihilation events.
People sometimes have hard lines that are surprising, and will cause them to do things that no rational person would do. Militaries and organizations do too.
War causes confusion, stress, anxiety, etc. which magnifies everything.
It doesn’t require ‘sane putin’ to push a button for someone somewhere to THINK it makes sense for him to and push the button in their exhausted and freaked out state of mind.
Putin didn’t start this invasion because he was bored.
Dictators generally do things because their internal power base demands something, but that is rarely visible to us, so we don’t know if a series of hardliner generals need this, or the base of paranoid hardline folks is getting angsty and he knows if he doesn’t appease them he is in trouble.
Near as I can tell, the senior leadership has already seen the writing on the wall re:getting frozen out of the west (sanctions and other stuff), and is seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
They probably see this as now or never. We don’t know how desperate the leadership or Putin may be.
Ukraine, like Poland has historically been caught in the middle of these kinds of things, which sucks. it also isn’t their first time.
People sometimes have hard lines that are surprising, and will cause them to do things that no rational person would do. Militaries and organizations do too.
War causes confusion, stress, anxiety, etc. which magnifies everything.
It doesn’t require ‘sane putin’ to push a button for someone somewhere to THINK it makes sense for him to and push the button in their exhausted and freaked out state of mind.
Putin didn’t start this invasion because he was bored.
Dictators generally do things because their internal power base demands something, but that is rarely visible to us, so we don’t know if a series of hardliner generals need this, or the base of paranoid hardline folks is getting angsty and he knows if he doesn’t appease them he is in trouble.
Near as I can tell, the senior leadership has already seen the writing on the wall re:getting frozen out of the west (sanctions and other stuff), and is seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
They probably see this as now or never. We don’t know how desperate the leadership or Putin may be.
Ukraine, like Poland has historically been caught in the middle of these kinds of things, which sucks. it also isn’t their first time.
> seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
Wow, that's literally the worst take I've heard on this.
- Russia has food to spare, exports tons of wheat, and has declining population
- Russia produces tons of energy and exports tons of oil and gas
- Russia already has several year round ports in the Black Sea. You think upgrading one of them to whatever they wanted is more expensive than waging fucking war?
- How much of a speed bump do you think a "demilitarized and neutral" Ukraine would be to forces that are doing a land invasion on the largest nuclear power? Also, Baltics are already in NATO, and the drive from there to Moscow is same distance on similarly flat terrain. Also, Finland and Sweden might join NATO too now thanks to this war. Also, nobody is ever doing a land invasion on a nuclear Russia. If the nukes didn't even assure that, nobody would keep spending billions on maintaining them.
Wow, that's literally the worst take I've heard on this.
- Russia has food to spare, exports tons of wheat, and has declining population
- Russia produces tons of energy and exports tons of oil and gas
- Russia already has several year round ports in the Black Sea. You think upgrading one of them to whatever they wanted is more expensive than waging fucking war?
- How much of a speed bump do you think a "demilitarized and neutral" Ukraine would be to forces that are doing a land invasion on the largest nuclear power? Also, Baltics are already in NATO, and the drive from there to Moscow is same distance on similarly flat terrain. Also, Finland and Sweden might join NATO too now thanks to this war. Also, nobody is ever doing a land invasion on a nuclear Russia. If the nukes didn't even assure that, nobody would keep spending billions on maintaining them.
It is not only about what you have, but also about what you don't want your foe/customer to have. Lots of natural gas was discovered in Ukraine around 2011-2016. Donbass is famous for its coal mining too and you should also consider the numerous NPPs that provide about half of Ukraine's electricity. Imagine all these assets in the hands of US/EU companies. Now that sounds like becoming less energy dependent from Russia. You should inquire about some of the reasons for Syrian war too. It all looks like a big blatant chess game and you will be very lucky if you are just a spectator. Btw current mainstream media reporting from both sides is mostly useless.
I appreciate your perspective. Yet, the west is playing the same game that Putin is - what line is too far to cross? The west has already armed and continues to supply Ukraine, which is probably part of the reason Putin's assault is struggling. I'm sure the west is also supplying satellite and other intelligence to Kyiv. So the "intervene and I nuke you" line has already been crossed, depending on your definition of "intervene".
AFAICT nobody is suggesting putting troops on the ground in Russia. Nobody in the west has any desire to conquer Russian territory.
There's a big spectrum between "stand back and watch" and "march troops to Moscow". Obviously "supply Ukraine" is already in progress. "Bomb Russian logistics convoys in Ukraine" could be too. Hell, the west doesn't even have to admit it. "We have no idea why your tanks are flaming wrecks, maybe their car warranty has expired?"
AFAICT nobody is suggesting putting troops on the ground in Russia. Nobody in the west has any desire to conquer Russian territory.
There's a big spectrum between "stand back and watch" and "march troops to Moscow". Obviously "supply Ukraine" is already in progress. "Bomb Russian logistics convoys in Ukraine" could be too. Hell, the west doesn't even have to admit it. "We have no idea why your tanks are flaming wrecks, maybe their car warranty has expired?"
What I am super intrigued to know ; What is the state of Cyber Warfare (True State) that is occurring?
Will there be any major infra attacks? On who, by whom?
The anon thing is cool and all - but many suspect that is intelligence agencies masquerading, but who knows about that..
I just hope this thing cools down and fast...
Will there be any major infra attacks? On who, by whom?
The anon thing is cool and all - but many suspect that is intelligence agencies masquerading, but who knows about that..
I just hope this thing cools down and fast...
I'll go out on a limb and call that cyberattacks prove to have zero benefit other than emotional catharsis. They will have no effect in the outcome of this war.
The way a lot of the western news is tilted, the ‘madman with nukes’ line is pretty clear. If Russia hits a nuclear waste storage depot (oops, already happened), or hints at using nukes (well, moving them to Belarus, that already happened) - when does it seem to make sense to ‘intervene’ by marching troops to Moscow? Many folks on the internet clearly already are.
It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
> It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
I generally agree, but there are emotional limits to this kind of thing. Americans have historically been very willing to commit airplanes and bombs to righteous causes, but marching to Moscow would be a very different matter. I assume the same thing is happening with Russia's conscripts: "Why the fuck are we doing this?"
I generally agree, but there are emotional limits to this kind of thing. Americans have historically been very willing to commit airplanes and bombs to righteous causes, but marching to Moscow would be a very different matter. I assume the same thing is happening with Russia's conscripts: "Why the fuck are we doing this?"
> I assume the same thing is happening with Russia's conscripts: "Why the fuck are we doing this?"
Russia has switched in the last 10 years (20?), to a large extent, from a conscript to a volunteer and mercenary force.
Russia has switched in the last 10 years (20?), to a large extent, from a conscript to a volunteer and mercenary force.
Also, 100% agree they definitely are playing a similar game - but one is doing it via social influence, the other via active military invasion and an ‘unsolicited’ one at that.
Not that the US (with occasional other Allies) hasn’t done similar, they just aren’t in this case.
Not that the US (with occasional other Allies) hasn’t done similar, they just aren’t in this case.
With drones, it's hard to know who's even doing the flying...
I expect a negotiated peace where the world gives away the eastern third of Ukraine and the west goes home patting themselves on the back but Ukraine is left with losing Crimea and it's eastern third. It's then just a matter of time before we repeat this whole mess and Ukraine is chipped away at until it's gone.
It's difficult for me to imagine a negotiated peace that doesn't involve NATO guarantees of sovereignty for the remaining parts of Ukraine. Otherwise, what's the value from Ukraine's perspective?
So one way or another this will end in short order. Or it will be WW3 (not necessarily nuclear, but it's a risk).
So one way or another this will end in short order. Or it will be WW3 (not necessarily nuclear, but it's a risk).
Russia doesn't adhere to their agreements. They violated Minsk and Budapest already.
Governments and organisations do tend to violate agreements if and when it suits them. Look at NATO expansion...
"After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia."[0]
[0] Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
"After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia."[0]
[0] Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
What agreement did they sign that they then broke?
Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right? Just trying to think of a way out of this mess with the fewest casualties.
> is that the worst outcome?
Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace.
> Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right?
Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London?
If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others.
> why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia?
We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.
Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace.
> Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right?
Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London?
If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others.
> why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia?
We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.
Yep, you're correct on all counts. I rescind my devils-advocate hypothetical. Thanks for laying that out so clearly.
> It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right?
'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday.
If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.)
Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians.
'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.
'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday.
If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.)
Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians.
'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.
Very good point. I just want there to be a simple answer to stop the bloodshed, but there isn't one. The alternative, the reality, is just so gruesome I wished there was a way out of this for all involved.
The ‘simple’ answer is for Ukrainians to universally take up arms and repel Russia.
Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues.
It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it.
Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter.
It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues.
It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it.
Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter.
It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
The separatists have been heavily subsidized by Russia to the point it's sometimes been difficult to tell who is who.
Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO.
Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.
Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO.
Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.
That makes sense. It's all just pretext for aggression, and to provide a fig leaf for some idiots (like me) to see if they want to see if that way.
Well, honestly this is another no man no problem situation, solution is clear..
Completely agree ; Personally, I think this was all about Odessa, and really Putin's plan was to seize the eastern territory along with Odessa, as truly he is after the port, and believed that he could turn immediately to negotiations and "peace" so long as he keeps Odessa (the Crimea playbook)
and it COMPLETELY backfired on him...
Which I think ties to my other theory ;
What if the reason it is backfiring in such a spectacular way, is that, perhaps, Putin was not playing along with the WEF great reset agenda. While Putin was planning the Crimean Copy for grabbing Odessa, the NWO took this as the opportunity to knock him out of the way?
and it COMPLETELY backfired on him...
Which I think ties to my other theory ;
What if the reason it is backfiring in such a spectacular way, is that, perhaps, Putin was not playing along with the WEF great reset agenda. While Putin was planning the Crimean Copy for grabbing Odessa, the NWO took this as the opportunity to knock him out of the way?
If Putin wanted Odessa, he and his military leadership didn't design the offensive to support that goal.
IMHO, that was never in the cards, because an effective amphibious assault would have required obscene and internationally-outrageous damage to civilians and shipping. Or unexpectedly optimistic progress on the Crimean front, which by its positioning needed to fight north and east. Odessa would have added west.
IMHO, that was never in the cards, because an effective amphibious assault would have required obscene and internationally-outrageous damage to civilians and shipping. Or unexpectedly optimistic progress on the Crimean front, which by its positioning needed to fight north and east. Odessa would have added west.
What if Putin has a brain tumor and doesn't care any more? or is truly turned psychotic like Hitler?
That depends on how likely the next couple layers below him are to recognize it, and think that ignoring him is better than not. I don’t know how that would shake out.
You assume, that suicide and loosing are two different things for Putin. There is no retirement option for him though!
I had this conversation the other day, but my friend did make a good point in that he could seek asylum and retire. He knows the day he steps down and stays in Russia though that he is a dead man walking. He has too many enemies to stay alive very long.
Maybe he could grow a mustache and buy a coffee farm in South America.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_after...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_after...
Asylum where?
If anything, Russia is probably safer than most other countries.
If anything, Russia is probably safer than most other countries.
Putin can't do much if other people aren't convinced that their least-bad course of action is following him.
You seem him calling on the Ukraine military to overthrow the government (which is probably not a great sign of how well his “demilitarize Ukraine” operation is going)? That option isn't available on only one side of the conflict.
You seem him calling on the Ukraine military to overthrow the government (which is probably not a great sign of how well his “demilitarize Ukraine” operation is going)? That option isn't available on only one side of the conflict.
It has nothing to do with cowardice. If a hostile nation state is willing to burn resources holding territory that contains insurgent forces we would be stupid to discourage it. As americans well know, it is really hard to maintain an extended occupation without a loss of money, moral, and life.
At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines, make it difficult to get back out of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainians slaughter the captive invading force (which will promptly surrender as they realize what has happened).
The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field.
Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.
The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field.
Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.
This is so unrealistic, it's the political equivalent of a hacker saying "Oh they used Bromoanovski encryption, hold on, I'M IN".
It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
> It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus
Not any I've seen. Could you link to some actual, recognized experts who say that?
Not any I've seen. Could you link to some actual, recognized experts who say that?
Sure!
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-ma...
https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-ma...
Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote.
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
Ah I see. Yes, I diverge there too. I don't think anyone thinks that the risk of nuclera war is overblown either. And I said so in my comment.
The specific thing OP was talking about that I think people agree with is,
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Generals have called for No-Fly Zones, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/27/breedlove-nato-commande...
I don't think anyone wants NATO and Russian forces to fight one another. At least, not officially.
The specific thing OP was talking about that I think people agree with is,
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Generals have called for No-Fly Zones, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/27/breedlove-nato-commande...
I don't think anyone wants NATO and Russian forces to fight one another. At least, not officially.
> cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.
Sporktacular(2)
That is too calculating. The public responds to emotions, and for better or worse that narrative is being driven by TikTok and Twitter in realtime. Flattened cities, corpses, and streams of refugees will force the western leaders to do something. It won't look good at home in Russia either, which is probably why it hasn't happened (yet).
[deleted]
> I wonder how much he cares about his reputation.
Displaying disregard for reputation, morals, etc. is a common negotiating tactic in everything - in professional business, kids selling baseball cards, interational relations, family squabbles. That's what anger is: A display that you are willing to act out and cross lines.
Don't believe it; it's just a tactic. Ironically, it indicates the opposite to a degree: By making the display, they show that they care about what you think. For professional communicators like Putin (and anyone else in international relations) it's not a mistake:
The Russian government invests enormous effort in their reputation, from their public propaganda to social media disinformation campaigns. It's not at all because they don't care - they care very much. Every government ever needs legitimacy, the consent of the governed, who outnumber the government leaders a million-to-one. (They also need sufficient international relations to trade, to receive essential goods, and not to be destroyed.)
Displaying disregard for reputation, morals, etc. is a common negotiating tactic in everything - in professional business, kids selling baseball cards, interational relations, family squabbles. That's what anger is: A display that you are willing to act out and cross lines.
Don't believe it; it's just a tactic. Ironically, it indicates the opposite to a degree: By making the display, they show that they care about what you think. For professional communicators like Putin (and anyone else in international relations) it's not a mistake:
The Russian government invests enormous effort in their reputation, from their public propaganda to social media disinformation campaigns. It's not at all because they don't care - they care very much. Every government ever needs legitimacy, the consent of the governed, who outnumber the government leaders a million-to-one. (They also need sufficient international relations to trade, to receive essential goods, and not to be destroyed.)
As it is rumored that Putin is actually (aside from the top 13s), the richest person in the world.
He seized all the oligarch's assets for himeself and his cronies, then requires % and payment in every endevour...
Just like Xi...
---
I personally thought he was just going after getting eastern Ukraine in order to obtain Odessa for the port.
I'd like to get confirmation on the bombing of the US Biolabs, though.... even though after it was reported that they were bombed, the US removed the documents from the site which talked about the US funding the joint Biolabs
Thankfully all the documents were archived prior :-) [0]
Now I am really unsure where the heck this is heading -- these are some really unprecedented events...
Is it that the world saw that the Bear was actually weak and everyone is turning on Russia because he was not playing along with WEF and the Great Reset?
So they need to knock russia out?
---
[0] https://newspunch.com/us-embassy-quietly-deletes-all-ukraine...
He seized all the oligarch's assets for himeself and his cronies, then requires % and payment in every endevour...
Just like Xi...
---
I personally thought he was just going after getting eastern Ukraine in order to obtain Odessa for the port.
I'd like to get confirmation on the bombing of the US Biolabs, though.... even though after it was reported that they were bombed, the US removed the documents from the site which talked about the US funding the joint Biolabs
Thankfully all the documents were archived prior :-) [0]
Now I am really unsure where the heck this is heading -- these are some really unprecedented events...
Is it that the world saw that the Bear was actually weak and everyone is turning on Russia because he was not playing along with WEF and the Great Reset?
So they need to knock russia out?
---
[0] https://newspunch.com/us-embassy-quietly-deletes-all-ukraine...
As much as Russia have an overwhelming tactical advantage they also have the most to lose. Putin has staked everything on this being a war that he will win and win with ease. A loss is completely unacceptable and even a protracted siege or insurrection would be enormously costly.
He is already doing it, just ran out of ammo. Russian ammo stockpiles are wast, but very old, and decrepit. Some literally date to WW2.
In first 2 days, they used pretty much everything against city outskirts.
You think Putin is afraid losing sleep? He already tried to bomb the Kiyv dam multiple times, he wants to destroy the city plainly, and simple.
https://uacrisis.org/en/the-russian-occupiers-tried-to-blow-...
If Kiyv dam is breached, it will flood the Zaporizhna nuclear plant.
In first 2 days, they used pretty much everything against city outskirts.
You think Putin is afraid losing sleep? He already tried to bomb the Kiyv dam multiple times, he wants to destroy the city plainly, and simple.
https://uacrisis.org/en/the-russian-occupiers-tried-to-blow-...
If Kiyv dam is breached, it will flood the Zaporizhna nuclear plant.
Sure, the russians who have been fighting in syria since 2015 and who have build more than 8000 of their most modern tank run out of ammo in 2 days.
It would be really good news, but that's totally unbelievable.
It would be really good news, but that's totally unbelievable.
They lost more soldiers just today than in all of the syrian war. And it's not about "all of russia ran out of ammo", it's "they overstretched their supply lines and can't supply enough ammo, fuel, etc, so their forces have just what they took with them".
It's only a four hours drive from russia to kiev, i can't believe one of the biggest armies in the World can Not find enough trucks to do this.
Russian logistics are built around rail lines, as they are more efficient. Per Russian doctrine you are going to struggle to supply large numbers of forces beyond 50 miles from a railway line. You need to understand just how much stuff a modern army needs. Estimates from WW2 calculated that for every soldier in theatre they needed over 4 tons of material a month (that's ammo, food, medical supplies, replacement parts for vehicles and equipment, fuel, etc). And those numbers are likely higher in the modern era, with heavier and more powerful vehicles, increased usage of electronics, and munitions like missiles. A US armored division (on the order of 270 tanks and a similar number of other vehicles) on the move would consume 500,000 gallons of fuel per day.
Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff, drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting for logistics
Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff, drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting for logistics
This is the entire reason for Air Superiority.
Imagine we as humanity dedicated that kind of enthusiasm, resources energy and logistics to climate change.
that topic has nothing to do with this topic though?
It is not about trucks. If you've been paying attention, you saw that they just went for Kyiv and didn't bother capturing cities or territory, which left their supply lines VERY vulnerable to the Ukrainian army. And they didn't think that the operation will be longer than a couple of days, so didn't bother to take many supplies with them. They drastically underestimated the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people's will to fight.
> And they didn't think that the operation will be longer than a couple of days,
Why would they think that and more important why wouldn't they plan for a non ideal outcome.
Ukraine is a huge country, bigger than iraq with more people, how could you be so sure?
But then again my expertice comes from playing Command & Conquest.
Why would they think that and more important why wouldn't they plan for a non ideal outcome.
Ukraine is a huge country, bigger than iraq with more people, how could you be so sure?
But then again my expertice comes from playing Command & Conquest.
Because their stated goal is basically to capture Kyiv and install their own government. They were expecting that everything would go like Crimean operation, but didn't account for the fact that Ukrainian army evolved since, have lots of experience fighting russia-backed separatists in Donbass region and is much more passionate about fighting than 8 years ago, when russian army conducted Crimean operation.
I don't really understand how they could have expected that, since Ukrainians had been told in NOVEMBER that the operation was coming. (And I'm talking about the laypeople, just watching TV, Ukrainian officials were likely given much more details from US intelligence than just what Blinken said on CNN…)
Expecting to catch your opponent off-guard with a quick assault might work, but not if you give them a four-month notice beforehand…
Expecting to catch your opponent off-guard with a quick assault might work, but not if you give them a four-month notice beforehand…
I watched Putin's addresses. He is out of touch with reality. Turns out that Russian propaganda is quite light compared to hard stuff that Putin has been consuming. He is talking about genocide on Donbass. He is talking about "nazi" government. He, likely, thought that Ukrainian people will see his army as liberators(from democratically elected government, lol).
I think they've counted on the Ukrainian government (especially Zelensky and his closest circle) to give up the fighting and surrender early in the operation. Or have Ukrainian army overthrow him, Putin already suggested they don't need to take commands from this "narc" and "nazi" (btw Zelensky is jewish). It's either their intelligence is that bad (which I don't believe) or Putin just didn't listen, having some delusional picture of the current political and cultural state of Ukraine in his head.
Putin is just a Russian Trump, which is kind of ironic.
They expected a lot more support from the local populace, it seems.
I'm a veteran and was did convoy security overseas as part of my service. I can believe it. Logistics is hard.
Glad for fuel thieves, and supplies embezzlers in Russian army now.
It also seems unlikely to me and I am skeptical. But logistics are hard under fire? Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft? Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route? With cheap drones for reconnaissance?
My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
While troops were deployed to Belarus for “exercises”, there were lots of reports of them selling fuel and other supplies.
That could have complicated logistics for the invasion.
That could have complicated logistics for the invasion.
> Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft?
Hard to know for sure, since this is an information that really affect morale on either side (Knowing that you still have airplanes and that the Russians don't control the sky is really good for Ukrainian morale, and vice versa).
Hard to know for sure, since this is an information that really affect morale on either side (Knowing that you still have airplanes and that the Russians don't control the sky is really good for Ukrainian morale, and vice versa).
Russia claimed that their rockets destroyed Ukrainian planes and anti-aircraft defense in the first strike. And then they started loosing their own planes, tanks and trains to Ukrainian air forces. Planes simply weren't where Russians thought they would be, since there is large supply of leaks from Russian side, and Ukrainian military knew exactly when they would attack(they ended up striking an hour late tbh).
Majority of Ukrainian aircraft is intact. Drones are being used.
>Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route?
Yes, and civilians are doing whatever they can to stop them.
>My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
Yes. It's true, and more are coming.
>Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route?
Yes, and civilians are doing whatever they can to stop them.
>My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
Yes. It's true, and more are coming.
And those that are coming are state-of-the-art. It is quite possible that they're going to be effective enough for one kill per weapon and the volume flooding in is going to go through the Russian armour like the clap.
Saint Javelin (motto: do a flip then hit) seems to be every bit as effective against Russia's most modern tanks as she is against any other tank.
> So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared defenses work against the Javelin? There’s simply no way to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that relations are too frosty for the United States to participate in Russia’s annual tank biathlon, don’t count on that happening.
Guess now we know.
> So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared defenses work against the Javelin? There’s simply no way to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that relations are too frosty for the United States to participate in Russia’s annual tank biathlon, don’t count on that happening.
Guess now we know.
> do a flip then hit
What does this mean??
I’ve been seeing some neat icons of Ss Javelin and NLAW making the rounds. Good stuff.
What does this mean??
I’ve been seeing some neat icons of Ss Javelin and NLAW making the rounds. Good stuff.
The clever thing about the Javelin is that it doesn't fly at a tank, but climbs vertically and comes down from above, hitting the top. So it does a flip before hitting.
The funny thing about the Javelin is that launching it looks like a dud - the first stage is basically an elaborate unboxing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIlROqW0fnc
The funny thing about the Javelin is that launching it looks like a dud - the first stage is basically an elaborate unboxing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIlROqW0fnc
Where did you get this data about their ammo stockpiles? I'd love to believe it.
It’s bogus, the standard rifle of the Russian forces is the AK-74, developed in the 1970s. Their main tank is the T-72 developed in the 70s but continuously developed and upgraded since. Most of their attack helicopters date from the 70s and 80s or later.
That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over the last decade and have experience from operations in Chechnya and Syria.
That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over the last decade and have experience from operations in Chechnya and Syria.
T72 is a 60s design too
It’s literally named after the year it went into production. Of course it was a product of iterative design, refinement and experience going back decades.
122mm ammo - WW2 stocks still there, 7.62x54R - same, 82mm mortars ammo - same, earliest KPV ammo is just few years older.
Old tanks as no match for modern MANPADs
I think you mean antitank rockets & missiles. MANPADs - Man Portable Air Defense weapons - are for use against helicopters.
sorry, generic misused term. In this case I meant javelin and the UK/Swedish equivalent. Both of which have been supplied to Ukraine.
Even if true pre WWII era ammo is often found by sportsmen and tested, it works just fine. Modern shell design which is over 100 years old doesn't degrade with time very much.
New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well enough if you have a gun to use it in.
New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well enough if you have a gun to use it in.
Yup, I've fired plenty of WWII era 7.62x54r out of my M91/30. No issues with it ever.
Russia has plenty of new artillery and arms. They have been building up a couple of decades. This is a tiny percentage of what they have waiting in the wings.
The Chezhoslovakia 68 scenario - quick takeover of the capital center with the central government - that Putin planned has already failed, in particular Russia failed to take the airfields near Kiev and can't bring the quick assault forces.
Russia officially announced that they intentionally slowed the offense on Kiev now. That naturally a total BS. Ukrainians have won the opening, and Putin has no game forward. With German Stingers Russia's air superiority will be drastically reduced. Even flattening Kiev wouldn't help Putin as it is already obvious that Ukrainians will be shooting even from those piles of rubble Stalingrad style, and Ukrainian forces will be growing with each day while Russian dwindling.
By moving onto Kiev right now Putin will be going down the Hitler's path of failed Blitzkrieg -> Stalingrad -> to be ultimately beaten back, in this case, to Moscow by the Ukrainian led coalition (there is no need for other countries to officially declare war as there is a well established pattern of well equipped volunteers, and there is no nuke issue as Russia will not strike its own territory, and in general Russians would hardly provide any resistance as the Putin's bottom really isn't worth it for them) with Nuremberg 2, etc.
Russia officially announced that they intentionally slowed the offense on Kiev now. That naturally a total BS. Ukrainians have won the opening, and Putin has no game forward. With German Stingers Russia's air superiority will be drastically reduced. Even flattening Kiev wouldn't help Putin as it is already obvious that Ukrainians will be shooting even from those piles of rubble Stalingrad style, and Ukrainian forces will be growing with each day while Russian dwindling.
By moving onto Kiev right now Putin will be going down the Hitler's path of failed Blitzkrieg -> Stalingrad -> to be ultimately beaten back, in this case, to Moscow by the Ukrainian led coalition (there is no need for other countries to officially declare war as there is a well established pattern of well equipped volunteers, and there is no nuke issue as Russia will not strike its own territory, and in general Russians would hardly provide any resistance as the Putin's bottom really isn't worth it for them) with Nuremberg 2, etc.
Ukraine, even with volunteers from other countries, cannot take Moscow. And why do you believe that an authoritarian regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its survival is at stake?
>Ukraine, even with volunteers from other countries, cannot take Moscow.
it definitely can't now. The destruction of Kiev, if it is to happen, will change a lot. Many more Russians would want to get rid of Putin, including many in the army. Ukraine and allies may not want to invade Russia, yet they may have no choice as leaving that regime in power would be a threat to their own safety. Similarly to how in WWII USSR couldn't just stop at the borders and had to go all the way to Berlin.
Has just heard on the Ukrainian TV, channel 5, "We're going to win. And this is our chance to destroy Russian Empire, and we're going to use it. .... That self-proclaimed genius strategist and strong man whom the leaders of powerful rich countries are so afraid of is getting beaten by just a good guy who recently was just a showman. We Christened Russia, and we're going to give it the last rites." - it is a very significant change of tone from the previous days.
Definitely change of tone - they are having a blast on TV - "To see Kiev and die. Looks like you're insisting on doing it in that your own peculiar way - well, be my guest."
>And why do you believe that an authoritarian regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its survival is at stake?
Nuking those Russian heavily populated areas there would definitely be suicidal, even if somebody manage to press the button.
Again, we aren't at that point yet. And such a scenario isn't given. Instead Putin can pause/freeze the war - pull away from Kiev, and keep the several beachheads they've gotten so far. The promise of frozen (in reality slow burning) war instead of hot would as usually calm down the Europe/NATO and will make it a local Ukrainian problem again ... for some number of years until some new development ...
it definitely can't now. The destruction of Kiev, if it is to happen, will change a lot. Many more Russians would want to get rid of Putin, including many in the army. Ukraine and allies may not want to invade Russia, yet they may have no choice as leaving that regime in power would be a threat to their own safety. Similarly to how in WWII USSR couldn't just stop at the borders and had to go all the way to Berlin.
Has just heard on the Ukrainian TV, channel 5, "We're going to win. And this is our chance to destroy Russian Empire, and we're going to use it. .... That self-proclaimed genius strategist and strong man whom the leaders of powerful rich countries are so afraid of is getting beaten by just a good guy who recently was just a showman. We Christened Russia, and we're going to give it the last rites." - it is a very significant change of tone from the previous days.
Definitely change of tone - they are having a blast on TV - "To see Kiev and die. Looks like you're insisting on doing it in that your own peculiar way - well, be my guest."
>And why do you believe that an authoritarian regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its survival is at stake?
Nuking those Russian heavily populated areas there would definitely be suicidal, even if somebody manage to press the button.
Again, we aren't at that point yet. And such a scenario isn't given. Instead Putin can pause/freeze the war - pull away from Kiev, and keep the several beachheads they've gotten so far. The promise of frozen (in reality slow burning) war instead of hot would as usually calm down the Europe/NATO and will make it a local Ukrainian problem again ... for some number of years until some new development ...
[deleted]
While we are here, https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30475340) is pretty insightful about the capabilities and tactical limitations of the Russian army’s BTG organization structure.
If Russia officially announced that they've intentionally slowed down with BS reasons, they failed in their first attempt and won't admit it.
They announced pausing, but didn't pause.
Interesting read. I guess it's self-evident, but not having thought about the topic, the utility of rubble and repurposing semi-destroyed structures, as well as how important snipers are, were new to me. Maybe the importance of snipers makes civilians being handed out guns in Kyiv now seem less futile.
Would be interested to read a basic explainer along these lines on "How to Rebuild a City" -- I guess one divergence from urban planning/development literature would be on how to reuse rubble? Given the many destroyed cities through history including this century which have been at least partially reubilt (perhaps Grozny was first of this century?) I guess there must be plenty written on this topic.
Would be interested to read a basic explainer along these lines on "How to Rebuild a City" -- I guess one divergence from urban planning/development literature would be on how to reuse rubble? Given the many destroyed cities through history including this century which have been at least partially reubilt (perhaps Grozny was first of this century?) I guess there must be plenty written on this topic.
I don’t know about writing or research on the subject but I live in a city in western Poland. In some sense you could say we are still “rebuilding” today. Much of the brick extracted from the rubble was from what I know, used as building material in the 50’s and 60’s. Near to where I live, there is a rectangular hill, some 6-7 stories tall and there is a large park on it. It’s pretty huge. It’s made up of all the rubble that was cleared from the area (which was a large neighborhood that was 99% destroyed during Soviet siege/offensive in 1944). Rebuilding cities after wars takes forever.
A small example would be the main church of Dresden[1], in what was Eastern Germany. Destroyed by the allied bombings of 1945, it was left as rubble[2] in the middle of town all through communist rule. The rebuild was completed in 2005.
Rebuilding entire cities is another thing altogether. And even if there is a new city built where the old one was standing, so much history has been lost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden#/media/F...
Rebuilding entire cities is another thing altogether. And even if there is a new city built where the old one was standing, so much history has been lost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden#/media/F...
in Lebanon they put rubble in the sea to extend land
I read about the Lebanese civil war a few years ago and it was pretty eye opening. Urban warfare seems terrifying from the perspective of the attacker.
If you are in a group and a sniper hits someone that isn't an instant kill, what do you do? Take cover and let them die, or run in the line of fire and try to help or try to find the sniper?
Snipers intentionally shoot to not kill sometimes, so they get more targets.
That isn't allowed by the Geneva convention. It is very effective though, so I'm sure it is done.
If your country is invaded, would you care about Geneva convention?
You make it sound like it is intentionally done but if the shooter is far away/has poor accuracy and the soldier has body armor, chances are he will be incapacitated but not killed. After that the question is: is more morally ok to killed the downed soldier or wait for his unit who is still and active aggressor.
Yeah, intentionally is not allowed, you are supposed to try for a clean kill. Doing so is as you point out difficult.
Interesting I would have guessed the opposite. Why?
Because the hurt suffer a lot. Getting through life missing a leg is not pleasant. Also dozens risk their life saving a down but alive friend, while you will leave the dead until it is safe
The number one objective is to not become another injured person or body that needs to be handled. You always take cover first then decide next moves.
Kill the sniper. Don't fixate on casualties. Slice the pie, identify probable locations, send teams to neutralize the threat.
"...In September 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Russian Sergeant Yakov Pavlov and his platoon seized a four-story apartment building—later dubbed “Pavlov’s House”—overlooking a large square. The building had long lines of sight from three sides. Pavlov’s men place barbed wire and antipersonnel and antitank mines around the building, smashed and cut holes in walls to create interior walkways, and placed machine-gun firing points in the building’s corners. They would move to the cellar as indirect fire struck the top of the building or to higher floors when German Panzers approached so they could fire antitank rifles down onto the tanks’ vulnerable, thin roofs. Pavlov and his men held the building for fifty-eight days against numerous mechanized and combined arms attacks, causing an unknown number of German vehicle and soldier kills in the process..."
Wouldn't they just target the building with a cruise middle these days?
Those cost a million dollars a piece.
Russians have serious logistical problems now. There are Twitter videos of some of their tank crews stuck on Ukrainian roads without fuel and being taunted and asked if they want for a ride back to Russia by Ukrainian passers by.
https://twitter.com/RihoTerras/status/1497537193346220038
Russians have serious logistical problems now. There are Twitter videos of some of their tank crews stuck on Ukrainian roads without fuel and being taunted and asked if they want for a ride back to Russia by Ukrainian passers by.
https://twitter.com/RihoTerras/status/1497537193346220038
These cost a million dollars a piece to Americans. I'm not sure how much Russia pays for each Caliber cruise missile, but the (short-range ballistic rather than cruise) Tochka-U is somewhere around $150k.
Also, for what it's worth, Russia used 26 Caliber missiles on a single day in Syria back in 2015.
Also, for what it's worth, Russia used 26 Caliber missiles on a single day in Syria back in 2015.
Russia doesn’t have the same stockpiles of Precision Guided Munitions, they don’t have the same infantry level access to NVGs, they have some high speed high tech gear, but limited amounts compared to Americans.
Compared to Americans, sure.
But they're fighting Ukrainians, not Americans.
But they're fighting Ukrainians, not Americans.
Stockpiles of munitions are vital, you can’t simply expend infinite numbers, they take time to resupply. At times even American troops were supply constrained on certain missiles.
The point is, Russia has to be selective, especially since Ukrainian AD is still active.
The point is, Russia has to be selective, especially since Ukrainian AD is still active.
Absolutely. But then again, how many Pavlov's houses do you get during a war? It's known by name precisely because it was such an extreme case.
That tweet has been shared a lot but is there any indication that any of it is true?
And even if it is, doesn’t that just mean Russia will move from the quick strike strategy to a more bloody, full assault?
And even if it is, doesn’t that just mean Russia will move from the quick strike strategy to a more bloody, full assault?
They are having to supply fuel, food and ammunition to 200,000 men over a 500 Km distance in hostile territory. You would need a fantastic logistical operation to be able to support that even in your own country.
"Ukrainian citizen confronts Russian soldiers after tank runs out of fuel"
https://youtu.be/14gVDF2b1vA
"Ukrainian citizen confronts Russian soldiers after tank runs out of fuel"
https://youtu.be/14gVDF2b1vA
This is incredibly baffling. How can a tank "get lost and run out of fuel"? The tanks don't have GPS or even a map? They don't have radio connection to some kind of command that know where its tanks are? Like ... how?
I don't even know. This seems like a plausible deniability for desertion or something. "We ran out of fuel, oh well, nothing we can do." Not that I'm complaining, I'd rather get lost and captured than fight for Putin either.
I don't even know. This seems like a plausible deniability for desertion or something. "We ran out of fuel, oh well, nothing we can do." Not that I'm complaining, I'd rather get lost and captured than fight for Putin either.
This is why I am confused. It just seems so absurdly incompetent that I can’t quite believe it is all true.
I realise that stupid things happen during war, but it’s only a few days in and surely this is the kind of thing they train and plan for.
I realise that stupid things happen during war, but it’s only a few days in and surely this is the kind of thing they train and plan for.
This is now impossible with modern weaponry. Sure, it is still a valid tactic for short term, but 5 days would be hard let alone 58 days.
I know two people in Ukraine who have received automatic weapons from the gov't...I do wonder how reasonable it is to arm untrained civilians. Turning someone without training into an armed combatant against an invading military seems like putting them directly in a high risk of being shot (as opposed to the lower risk of collateral casualty)
EDIT: it's not my hill to die on, I just hope it's not theirs either
EDIT: it's not my hill to die on, I just hope it's not theirs either
Heh. You can really tell in this thread who has grown up with guns and who hasn't.
I remember my grandpa taking me under some bridge somewhere and letting me loose off a few .45 rounds. I was about 8.
It was supremely stupid. In fact, I have a vivid memory of it almost being a disaster. My grandpa lived in a bad part of Alton, IL. His house got broken into on a regular basis. So he kept a loaded pistol right next to his bed.
Somehow I found this thing at around the same age, and started fooling around with it.
But then something interesting happened. The thing my grandpa taught me: never to assume a gun wasn't loaded, and always check it. So I checked it, and sure enough, I did not squeeze the trigger that day.
My point is, it doesn't take much training to be safe around weapons. Military tactics are an entirely different matter, of course. It's not a great idea to have random people running around with guns.
But they're not random people. They're defending their home. If SF was under attack by Japan in an alternate universe, wouldn't you do the same?
Seeing Kiev unfold makes me feel a strange kinship with Washington, of all people. There too, people had very little combat training, and were pretty much arming the neighbors. But it turns out that armed neighbors can sometimes be effective.
Here's a fascinating piece of propaganda for you: https://twitter.com/peedutuisk/status/1497310882069581824
It's propaganda, but it's very good propaganda. For a brief moment, I was actually crazy enough to wish I was out there helping them.
I remember my grandpa taking me under some bridge somewhere and letting me loose off a few .45 rounds. I was about 8.
It was supremely stupid. In fact, I have a vivid memory of it almost being a disaster. My grandpa lived in a bad part of Alton, IL. His house got broken into on a regular basis. So he kept a loaded pistol right next to his bed.
Somehow I found this thing at around the same age, and started fooling around with it.
But then something interesting happened. The thing my grandpa taught me: never to assume a gun wasn't loaded, and always check it. So I checked it, and sure enough, I did not squeeze the trigger that day.
My point is, it doesn't take much training to be safe around weapons. Military tactics are an entirely different matter, of course. It's not a great idea to have random people running around with guns.
But they're not random people. They're defending their home. If SF was under attack by Japan in an alternate universe, wouldn't you do the same?
Seeing Kiev unfold makes me feel a strange kinship with Washington, of all people. There too, people had very little combat training, and were pretty much arming the neighbors. But it turns out that armed neighbors can sometimes be effective.
Here's a fascinating piece of propaganda for you: https://twitter.com/peedutuisk/status/1497310882069581824
It's propaganda, but it's very good propaganda. For a brief moment, I was actually crazy enough to wish I was out there helping them.
I feel obligated to point out that a major reversal in Washington's fortunes came when Lafeyette (and a few other European officers such as Steuben) trained American colonists, and they became dramatically more effective. Who knows, maybe there are equivalents of Lafeyette and Steuben among the Ukrainian people today, but if so I wouldn't know about it (or expect to).
I'm sure there are hundreds of US and NATO "advisors" on the ground, they show up in every conflict, but are not heavily reported on.
I've seen a few videos of citizens lining up for weapons, and IMO, the troubling thing is the lack of uniforms. If Russians can't tell the difference between civilians and combatants, everyone becomes a target.
‘Legally?’ Nope. But that is literally how every invasion ends up until the population is ‘pacified’. It’s why guerilla war works so well too.
The invaders/gov’t can’t tell who is actually an adversary until it is late, and attempts to guess always kill innocent civilians which just draws more anger and hate from the local population and creates more rebels/guerillas.
This is why people say ‘war is hell - because it is.
The invaders/gov’t can’t tell who is actually an adversary until it is late, and attempts to guess always kill innocent civilians which just draws more anger and hate from the local population and creates more rebels/guerillas.
This is why people say ‘war is hell - because it is.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
Yellow armbands seem to be the militia indicator.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-b...
Yellow armbands seem to be the militia indicator.
> Yellow armbands seem to be the militia indicator.
Not just militia, both sides have the same uniforms and helmets.
Not just militia, both sides have the same uniforms and helmets.
Perhaps the German offer of helmets wasn't as useless as it seemed.
Russia is already attacking hospitals and apartment buildings. The time has passed for that little problem.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/149751474738575769...
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/149751474738575769...
It's not clear if it helps in the long run, it probably does but a lot of friendly fire should be expected. Just recent example where Ukrainian anti aircraft units were taken for Russians and killed in Kyiv (the one where strela 10 vehicle collided with a car under fire) shows the danger.
To be fair to myself and you, I grew up in rural america around with guns everywhere. Took hunter safety, whole shebang, never really got around to buying myself or using automatic weapons.
I see your point on the American revolution, but please, let's not forget times have changed. the US population were on home ground with rifled barrels, easier to aim and using geurilla tactics against an old british standing line firing system (also their rifles weren't always rifled ;) ).
The chance that a population of civilians with weapons goes to hide in a bunker with or without unarmed people is higher than it is with military troops, and what happens when Russian intel says there are enemy combatants hiding in a bunker vs a bunch of civilians hiding in a bunker...chances go up that they will receive a bunker buster knock and talk more than if there were unarmed people there.
this isn't 1776.
I see your point on the American revolution, but please, let's not forget times have changed. the US population were on home ground with rifled barrels, easier to aim and using geurilla tactics against an old british standing line firing system (also their rifles weren't always rifled ;) ).
The chance that a population of civilians with weapons goes to hide in a bunker with or without unarmed people is higher than it is with military troops, and what happens when Russian intel says there are enemy combatants hiding in a bunker vs a bunch of civilians hiding in a bunker...chances go up that they will receive a bunker buster knock and talk more than if there were unarmed people there.
this isn't 1776.
The Ukrainians aren't some ragtag group. Literally thousands of antitank weapons have been supplied to them.
The Ukrainian military, and even their air force, are still coordinated and operational.
---------
This means that rifle militia aren't there to kill a tank. They are there to force the tank commander inside with small arms fire. Tanks are famously difficult to see out of.
Once in there, the tank is a sitting duck to a Javelin or Panzerfaust will kill the tank reliably.
This isn't 100 poorly trained militia vs tank.
The situation is closer to 100 poorly trained militia + 5 professional soldiers armed with NATO top of the line antitank missiles vs tank.
The Ukrainian military, and even their air force, are still coordinated and operational.
---------
This means that rifle militia aren't there to kill a tank. They are there to force the tank commander inside with small arms fire. Tanks are famously difficult to see out of.
Once in there, the tank is a sitting duck to a Javelin or Panzerfaust will kill the tank reliably.
This isn't 100 poorly trained militia vs tank.
The situation is closer to 100 poorly trained militia + 5 professional soldiers armed with NATO top of the line antitank missiles vs tank.
Having grown up around guns, you should know that modern semi and fully automatic rifles are 100x more n00b friendly than an 18th century muzzle loader.
Battles inside a city is still armored vehicles and men on foot. Things haven’t changed all that much. Rifles and improvised bombs go a long way.
If pseudonymous self-professed US veterans of Afghanistan/Iraq wars commenting online are to be trusted, balloons full of paint are among the most effective anti-tank weapons in urban fighting.
That works but a Molotov cocktail on the engine air intake is also pretty good and easy too. The goal is to get the crew out of the tank. Usually you have a LOT of infantry around tanks to provide security
Was it not Stalin who said "quantity has a quality all its own?"
There are hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, but tens of millions of Ukranians capable of using rifles semi-effectively. And they are literally everywhere in the country.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, but tens of millions of Ukranians capable of using rifles semi-effectively. And they are literally everywhere in the country.
> My point is, it doesn't take much training to be safe around weapons.
And yet too many people do not get any kind of training:
> Student accidentally shoots self in incident at Huntsville elementary school
* https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/02/student-shot-in-i...
> Man accidentally shoots self while playing with gun along San Diego interstate
* https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/north-county-news/man...
> Man accidentally shot himself in hand while cleaning his gun in Mount Pleasant
* https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-acc...
Some folks probably shouldn't have guns because of emotional control issues:
> A man was arrested early morning after shots were fired at another man during what the sheriff's department is calling a road rage dispute in Coachella.
* https://amp.desertsun.com/amp/6909957001
> Father in custody after directing 4-year-old to shoot at officers in McDonald's drive-thru
* https://kutv.com/news/local/suspect-in-custody-after-shootin...
More:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
And yet too many people do not get any kind of training:
> Student accidentally shoots self in incident at Huntsville elementary school
* https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/02/student-shot-in-i...
> Man accidentally shoots self while playing with gun along San Diego interstate
* https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/north-county-news/man...
> Man accidentally shot himself in hand while cleaning his gun in Mount Pleasant
* https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-acc...
Some folks probably shouldn't have guns because of emotional control issues:
> A man was arrested early morning after shots were fired at another man during what the sheriff's department is calling a road rage dispute in Coachella.
* https://amp.desertsun.com/amp/6909957001
> Father in custody after directing 4-year-old to shoot at officers in McDonald's drive-thru
* https://kutv.com/news/local/suspect-in-custody-after-shootin...
More:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
I wonder if Dang is checking all those throwaways to see which are Russian propagandists.
Yes, of course some idiots can shoot themselves with guns, but most people don't. In fact, even most idiots don't. USA has more guns than people and those freak accidents are rare. Various third world countries have people who cannot read, but who can shoot a gun. And again, they dont hurt themselves.
If you wanted to make some dig about guns, then maybe give examples of real problems (school shootings, robberies, being killed by a stray bullet), but here you come with some absurd comments that "NOT shooting yourself into your foot" requires 200 IQ, which is a straight lie. Using a gun is probably on par of learning to ride a bike, and definitely much easier than driving a car.
Ukrainians cant get a guns to defend their homeland, because some propaganda throwaway (sponsored by GRU or KGB?) claims that they will shoot themselves in their feet.
Those people are defending their homes against an aggression, most probably were conscripts who were taught how to use a gun.
Yes, of course some idiots can shoot themselves with guns, but most people don't. In fact, even most idiots don't. USA has more guns than people and those freak accidents are rare. Various third world countries have people who cannot read, but who can shoot a gun. And again, they dont hurt themselves.
If you wanted to make some dig about guns, then maybe give examples of real problems (school shootings, robberies, being killed by a stray bullet), but here you come with some absurd comments that "NOT shooting yourself into your foot" requires 200 IQ, which is a straight lie. Using a gun is probably on par of learning to ride a bike, and definitely much easier than driving a car.
Ukrainians cant get a guns to defend their homeland, because some propaganda throwaway (sponsored by GRU or KGB?) claims that they will shoot themselves in their feet.
Those people are defending their homes against an aggression, most probably were conscripts who were taught how to use a gun.
> I wonder if Dang is checking all those throwaways to see which are Russian propagandists.
I must be a heck of a sleeper agent given this account has been around since 2017:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=throw0101a
You may want to see some of my other posts on this general topic:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30406240
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30406157
> Ukrainians cant get a guns to defend their homeland, because some propaganda throwaway (sponsored by GRU or KGB?) claims that they will shoot themselves in their feet.
Please quote back the part of my post where I say they can't. Please.
I must be a heck of a sleeper agent given this account has been around since 2017:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=throw0101a
You may want to see some of my other posts on this general topic:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30406240
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30406157
> Ukrainians cant get a guns to defend their homeland, because some propaganda throwaway (sponsored by GRU or KGB?) claims that they will shoot themselves in their feet.
Please quote back the part of my post where I say they can't. Please.
[deleted]
> And yet too many people do not get any kind of training:
In Ukraine every man over 40 years old received a training on basic infantry tactics and using assault rifle AK-74 and hand grenade RGD-5 during high school years.
In Ukraine every man over 40 years old received a training on basic infantry tactics and using assault rifle AK-74 and hand grenade RGD-5 during high school years.
Presumably people in the US National Guard are also trained:
> Guard soldier killed in tragic accidental shooting by roommate, fellow Guardsman
* https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/02/guard-so...
The use of the word "accident" in the above story is also not accurate IMHO, for the same reason why "car accident" isn't:
> The two groups behind the recent campaign — Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets — argue that the term "accident" makes it seem like crashes are inevitable, rather than preventable. In a subtle way, it normalizes the crash and discourages us from looking more deeply into their causes — whether alcohol, reckless driving, or bad street design.
* https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident
Certainly the training they got during service is good, but the GP's point about not much training being needed isn't as simple as he makes it out IMHO.
> Guard soldier killed in tragic accidental shooting by roommate, fellow Guardsman
* https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/02/guard-so...
The use of the word "accident" in the above story is also not accurate IMHO, for the same reason why "car accident" isn't:
> The two groups behind the recent campaign — Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets — argue that the term "accident" makes it seem like crashes are inevitable, rather than preventable. In a subtle way, it normalizes the crash and discourages us from looking more deeply into their causes — whether alcohol, reckless driving, or bad street design.
* https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident
Certainly the training they got during service is good, but the GP's point about not much training being needed isn't as simple as he makes it out IMHO.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make?
Training is not universal, and for some people it may not even be useful.
It's certainly not ideal, but their only other choice at this point is to surrender to Russian occupation. The Russian military greatly outnumbers that of Ukraine, so without civilians joining the defense, they'd really have no chance. Of course these people are at high risk, but obviously they feel it's worth it to defend their freedom.
I don’t see how a civilian force will significantly improve their chances.
Edit: this isn’t a video game. Civilians taking up arms makes them targets. The Russian aim is regime change, and at this time it appears that Russia will prevail. It is existential for Russia. All a civilian resistance will do is maybe slightly delay the inevitable at horrific cost. I think people should be discouraged from throwing their lives away on a lost cause. Even the Ukrainian propaganda of heroic deaths contains an understanding that there is no hope.
Edit: this isn’t a video game. Civilians taking up arms makes them targets. The Russian aim is regime change, and at this time it appears that Russia will prevail. It is existential for Russia. All a civilian resistance will do is maybe slightly delay the inevitable at horrific cost. I think people should be discouraged from throwing their lives away on a lost cause. Even the Ukrainian propaganda of heroic deaths contains an understanding that there is no hope.
Russian forces are mostly conscripts, so it's not that much better. They probably have marginally better training, but they're less motivated. Also, there's military service in Ukraine. The average civilian probably has a decent understanding of weapons handling and basic tactics.
They also have less knowledge and understanding of the key terrain involved. That’s the key here in urban warfare. Understanding the critical choke points, areas of overwatch and lines of sight etc will be something they know intuitively because they’re from there. Russians will have to look at their maps.
The forces fighting in Ukraine are not conscripts, but contract soldiers. Russian law doesn't allow conscripts to be deployed overseas. Of course it's an authoritarian regime so they could do it anyway, but there would be serious domestic repercussions and largely isn't necessary to get the troop concentrations they have
there are reports that they do exactly that: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/26/i-m-panicking-where-...
The chance that any random civilian you encounter could blow you away drastically changes how an occupying force has to go about occupying
Locals often know every street, every building, every alley of their neighborhood. That information asymmetry is a huge advantage in the locals' favor.
Guerilla warfare is very effective against ‘traditional military’ tactics.
It causes bloodshed, but it’s not like having everyone you know sent to the gulag is all roses and butterflies either. And that is legitimately what the stakes are (or worse).
It causes bloodshed, but it’s not like having everyone you know sent to the gulag is all roses and butterflies either. And that is legitimately what the stakes are (or worse).
History is littered with examples of civilian forces making occupation unbearable for the occupiers.
one example from 2014:
https://twitter.com/ZeroPark30/status/1497445963111280647
https://twitter.com/ZeroPark30/status/1497445963111280647
They are already at high risk of being shot. Merely leaving the city they are in puts them at massive risk of attack. There are almost no instances where we should be arming people, but having evil, rampaging attackers kilometers from entices one to defend themselves rather than submit to occupation and likely death.
In 1995 Chechen anti-tank teams drawn from the local civilian population disabled a whole Russian tank battalion while suffering very few loses themselves. You can do a lot with volunteers on home territory.
The Ukrainians are in a struggle for self determination, these people are volunteering and they should be able to if the want to.
Chechen anti-tank teams were facing very poorly prepared and motivated, and almost entirely conscript, Russian army in 1994-96. With tanks in particular, inexperienced commanders who were given orders to "get it over quickly" would often send them without infantry screens, making them easy pickings for RPG teams. And in urban areas especially, RPGs were used from basements of apartment buildings - low enough that Russian tanks cannot depress the main gun to lob a shell in there, or use the co-axial MG.
None of this is likely to apply in this case. Russian armor is still likely to take heavy casualties in the cities - that's just the nature of urban warfare - but I don't think it'll be anything like Chechnya in the 90s.
None of this is likely to apply in this case. Russian armor is still likely to take heavy casualties in the cities - that's just the nature of urban warfare - but I don't think it'll be anything like Chechnya in the 90s.
Looks like the Ukrainians, at least as of today, have NLAW shoulder fired anti-tank missiles which are a hell of a lot better tan the RPGs the Chechens had. Apparently you just need to shoot over top of the tank, and don't need direct line of sight. There a some videos up on twitter of them in use.
They have Javelins, too. But, conversely, Russians aren't going to just send their armor ahead without infantry and let it be slaughtered.
I think the most salient question is whether Ukraine can maintain the effectiveness of its anti-air long term.
I think the most salient question is whether Ukraine can maintain the effectiveness of its anti-air long term.
Yeah, that for sure remains to be seen. I really hope they can pull it off and repel the invasion before neighboring states get drawn in.
AFAIK The Chechens were ex soviet military and had been operating a large scale black market for weapons - so they had plenty on hand. Towards the end of that conflict Russia started using AA guns on the tanks to counter the ambushes. I’m pretty sure they learned a lot from that experience.
They were, but a lot of Ukrainians have military service experience. It also seems like Russia didn’t learn those lessons, and others. Their armor looks to be stretched thin. In urban fighting having lots of people firing from a lot of places on advancing Russians will make it hard for them to focus air support. Just pinning down small groups of Russian infantry will allow the Ukrainian army to roll them up if they can maintain mobility.
Russia started using AA guns on the tanks to counter the ambushes.
Haven't seen any pictures of these [1] in Ukraine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
Haven't seen any pictures of these [1] in Ukraine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
Ukraine is one of the 28 countries with mandatory military service. But regardless, I think anything goes when your country is facing an existential threat.
You might be surprised how little weapons training many actual soldiers get.
Is the risk to minimize total casualties (military and civilian, injury and death) or to repel an invading force? Because it's very likely that if your goal is the latter, putting a gun in everyone's hand regardless of their skill with it might be the best course of action.
I don't understand why they are doing this, Wikipedia states that they have 900 000 citizens that went through military service.
If you can't defend your country with almost a million soldiers No amount of untrained civians will.
Thats the thing - they’ve passed the mandatory military service, so they know how to follow orders and maintain discipline, but they went home and became doctors/programmers, now that there’s war, they are given arms and asked to remember their training.
But then they aren't just giving out guns to civilians, but they are calling them back to service (i don't know the proper english term for this).
In the US, we have active military members where they are 24/7 soldiers. There are also reservists where once a month, they get together for a weekend to do solider stuff. There's also a two week stint once a year to keep up training. So not quite as well trained as active military, but a hell of a lot more well trained than just handing rifles to someone with a slap on the backside with a "good luck" for extra measure.
Otherwise, calling a retired active military member back to active service is known as being recalled.
Otherwise, calling a retired active military member back to active service is known as being recalled.
Consider all 4 dimensions of the battlefield. You cannot be aware of every direction, at all times. Especially in cities, which has 3 spatial dimensions of potential hostile infantry positions. Therefore sheer numbers do matter.
Especially in the cities, all insurgents have to do is wait, and rain down bullets. Many will miss, but some will hit.
Especially in the cities, all insurgents have to do is wait, and rain down bullets. Many will miss, but some will hit.
One key to success in military operations is tempo. Armed defenders using guerrilla tactics disrupt an attacker's tempo. Every minute a platoon of soldiers hesitates crossing a street or gets bogged down clearing a building is a minute closer to sunset, a minute more of vehicles burning fuel, a minute longer for defenders to get reinforcements, and more stress and fatigue on the whole unit.
An attacking force doesn't have infinite resources to attack indefinitely. A mechanized force that runs out of fuel is extremely vulnerable. Those extra minutes burning gas not being able to push forward add up.
An attacking force doesn't have infinite resources to attack indefinitely. A mechanized force that runs out of fuel is extremely vulnerable. Those extra minutes burning gas not being able to push forward add up.
[deleted]
Also, how is this coordinated, and how do they prevent being shot at by their own people?
It's a war. Normal rules to not apply. If you are ever in one, you will want a weapon, trust me.
... there are some rules by Geneva convention
This civilians with guns are now combatants. And must "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war"
This civilians with guns are now combatants. And must "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war"
Lulz - that’s all well and good, except that gets paid mostly lip service even by the professional militaries, who are the ones who have the most to lose by not following the rules.
Civilians do what they need to do to survive and protect their loved ones. If that means shivving a soldier in the back while pretending to be unarmed, so be it.
Having guns is way better than civilians usually get.
Civilians do what they need to do to survive and protect their loved ones. If that means shivving a soldier in the back while pretending to be unarmed, so be it.
Having guns is way better than civilians usually get.
Yea, they can do that but i think it is a war crime. Not sure thou im not lawyer.
Anyway it probably confuses soldiers so they start shooting civilians.
Anyway it probably confuses soldiers so they start shooting civilians.
They do that anyway. And war crimes are solidly in the class of ‘if you win, it’s not a crime’ unfortunately. For example, the US (as much as it tries) often commits what are clearly war crimes, and it’s crickets.
Unlawful combatants aren't protected by the laws of war, they're protected by the laws of the land they are in. I think you'd be surprised at how lenient the laws of the land can be for people who technically commit crimes like murder against invading forces.
You wear IFF coloured bands. From photos I've seen the Ukrainians are using yellow arm bands, and Russians white leg bands.
They are trained by the local defense organization.
It is pretty likely that all of those people have handled guns before in some capacity.
People are dying there because of those weapons! Guess what criminals do when you can get automatic rifle for free? Do they fight against invaders?
Curious honest question, has there ever been a successful urban attack in the past, say, 30 years, where the urban population by-and-large really doesn't want the attackers to be there?
I mean, when I look at urban warfare, I think of the following possible outcomes:
1. Total annihilation, e.g. Warsaw at the end of WWII.
2. Splitting the city up into factional neighborhoods. Possible but given the situation in Kiev, there don't seem to be many Russian supporters there anong the native population (this is not true in Eastern Ukrainian cities)
3. Subduing the defenders and installing a puppet government. I think the best model here appears to be the Soviet Union crushing the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
#3 seems like the most obvious intention of Putin, but I just don't really see how that is possible in modern Kyiv. In 1956 Budapest there were plenty of Communist supporters - indeed, they were the ones in power before the revolution.
The "best" outcome I can see from this war is that Putin completes the annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk, with possibly some other eastern regions e.g. a full land bridge from Crimea to Donetsk, as well as Kharkiv, but I just don't understand the attack on all of Ukraine. If anything you'll just get a further sorting of the country where everyone who despises Russia moves to the west and everyone else decides to stay/move to Russian-occupied areas.
I mean, when I look at urban warfare, I think of the following possible outcomes:
1. Total annihilation, e.g. Warsaw at the end of WWII.
2. Splitting the city up into factional neighborhoods. Possible but given the situation in Kiev, there don't seem to be many Russian supporters there anong the native population (this is not true in Eastern Ukrainian cities)
3. Subduing the defenders and installing a puppet government. I think the best model here appears to be the Soviet Union crushing the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
#3 seems like the most obvious intention of Putin, but I just don't really see how that is possible in modern Kyiv. In 1956 Budapest there were plenty of Communist supporters - indeed, they were the ones in power before the revolution.
The "best" outcome I can see from this war is that Putin completes the annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk, with possibly some other eastern regions e.g. a full land bridge from Crimea to Donetsk, as well as Kharkiv, but I just don't understand the attack on all of Ukraine. If anything you'll just get a further sorting of the country where everyone who despises Russia moves to the west and everyone else decides to stay/move to Russian-occupied areas.
Battle of Grozny (1994-1995) may be called "successful", but overall it was a Pyrrhic victory. It also took an extremely talented general Rokhlin to take command of a large part of operation. I don't think Russia has military commanders of his proportion now due to 20 years of negative selection.
I’m confident the attack on the whole Ukraine is to prevent Western weapon supplied counter attacks. I doubt they have long term plans for occupation for the entire country.
You think it's easier to invade a country in home territory, while they had years to prepare between the previous invasion and now, than it is to defend against some attack that Ukraine might hope to mount against Russia? That sounds... unlikely. It's apparently also what supporters of Russia are saying, so I doubt this is the whole truth, even if there were a grain of truth to an all-out attack being "self defense".
Of the three options of don't invade, invade a little, or invade the whole country, invading a little would allow Ukraine to mount an attack against the breakaway regions and the West was bound to supply advanced weapons to make sure they would be successful at it. So when Putin said they were going to secure the breakaway regions my first thoughts was that there would be no way to do that unless you neutralize the entirety of Ukraine.
That's not the main thing. Ukraine was edging to the EU.
Without Ukraine, Russian naval fleet would become worthless as it can't leave the black sea anymore.
Without Ukraine, Russian naval fleet would become worthless as it can't leave the black sea anymore.
The map seems to show that Russia has ports on the Black sea especially since they took Crimea. Turkey owns the mouth of the Black Sea and it is already part of NATO
When your enemy tells you what he is going to do, it is best, to a first order approximation, to believe him.
Do you mean what they said or what others said that they said because unfortunately they are different and not enough people know that despite how easy it is to check?
That page is what people are using to suggest he is reestablishing USSR which is not my read of it. On the subsequent page which I’m going by memory because it is inaccessible they state that they will neutralize and de-nazify the country. From that I don’t see how people are getting to long term occupation (except for the breakaway regions). Their objectives can be met by demilitarization which is what I assume they mean by neutralization of Ukraine and I think that is something everyone could come to terms with as a reasonable compromise. If Ukraine starts re-arming then Russia would come back and prevent it.
De-nazify a country with a Jewish president? (His grandfather's father and brothers were killed in the Holocaust.
Russia doesn't have the logistical power to have an occupational force. They need to implement a strawman government and hope that the military falls into place.
Russia has the Donbass separatist militias, which would make for a perfect occupation force - they are ideologically motivated, but also, they know that they'll be treated as traitors by any Ukrainian state with more than a semblance of independence.
You gonna need to explain how a region with a population of 2 million will occupy a country with a population of 44 million.
Aleppo?
The article links to Army Doctrine. I am surprised to find it open to people outside of army.
Does anyone perhaps know if there is resource like this for Army communication? I would be most interested in not combat communication where they have to give orders, but maybe where they have more time to share opinions down and up the hierarchy, maybe garher intel.
I think it could be useful to management science, but havent found anyone trying to icorpate defense learnings into management
Does anyone perhaps know if there is resource like this for Army communication? I would be most interested in not combat communication where they have to give orders, but maybe where they have more time to share opinions down and up the hierarchy, maybe garher intel.
I think it could be useful to management science, but havent found anyone trying to icorpate defense learnings into management
You might poke around https://armypubs.army.mil/ This kind of thing is scattered all over the place, but it's generally publicly available.
How about https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18314-ADP_6-...
There are also
https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/
How about https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18314-ADP_6-...
There are also
https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/
The the majority of the US Army’s (and most other DoD branches and agencies) regulations and doctrine are unclassified and available to the public. You can probably search most of the relevant publications you want at armypubs.army.mil.
I don’t believe it is behind an authentication wall.
I don’t believe it is behind an authentication wall.
My personal favorite (which IIRC I first saw posted here on HN) is ATP 3-18.13: SPECIAL FORCES USE OF PACK ANIMALS
On top of useful information about a llama's ideal body temperature and the amount of water that a camel needs every day, it contains gems like this:
Elephants are not the easygoing, kind, loving creatures that people believe them to be. They are, of course, not evil either. They simply follow their biological pattern, shaped by evolution.
On top of useful information about a llama's ideal body temperature and the amount of water that a camel needs every day, it contains gems like this:
Elephants are not the easygoing, kind, loving creatures that people believe them to be. They are, of course, not evil either. They simply follow their biological pattern, shaped by evolution.
> Elephants are not the easygoing, kind, loving creatures that people believe them to be.
Do people actually think that? My experience with wild African elephants is that your best course of action is to walk softly, keep your distance, and don't piss them off. They're scary, and smart. When they look you in the eye, they very clearly are saying, "I can crush you like a bug, little one". Our Land Cruiser got charged by a pissed off cow one afternoon. Her tusk went through the rear sheet metal of the car, and lifted the rear wheels off the ground.
Do people actually think that? My experience with wild African elephants is that your best course of action is to walk softly, keep your distance, and don't piss them off. They're scary, and smart. When they look you in the eye, they very clearly are saying, "I can crush you like a bug, little one". Our Land Cruiser got charged by a pissed off cow one afternoon. Her tusk went through the rear sheet metal of the car, and lifted the rear wheels off the ground.
I've ridden elephants before, and I would be very hesitant to even approach them, let alone load them down with cargo, without an experienced handler supervising everything.
In addition there is being around an elephant under fire. That sounds a lot like making a horrible situation way worse.
I would likewise be interested in communication systems that are social systems rather than tech systems (I.e. what do you do when phone/internet systems collapse?) Though I suppose that is probably only appropriate for an insurgency as you would have/use radio tech…
> I.e. what do you do when phone/internet systems collapse?
I suspect the wired network in a city to be quite strong actually, since most of it is buried. For sure, you'd have lost connectivity to the rest of the world and internet, but setting-up a local telephone network using the copper wire network still standing doesn't sound that hard actually!
I suspect the wired network in a city to be quite strong actually, since most of it is buried. For sure, you'd have lost connectivity to the rest of the world and internet, but setting-up a local telephone network using the copper wire network still standing doesn't sound that hard actually!
With the discontinuation of POTS, is the copper being used for some other purpose?
I don't know about Ukraine specifically, but DSL is still really important in Europe.
"Offense and Defense"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220129201329/https://armypubs....
"Urban Operations"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220120161007/https://armypubs....
"Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220214151137/https://rdl.train...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220129201329/https://armypubs....
"Urban Operations"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220120161007/https://armypubs....
"Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain"
https://web.archive.org/web/20220214151137/https://rdl.train...
For how to attack a city, see "Urban Operations", the U.S. Army/USMC doctrinal publication.[1]
The two documents view different kinds of war. The USMA pub describes historic WWII city defenses where the defenders held out against armor for long periods, at the cost of high casualties and destroying the city. That is, Stalingrad. The US doctrinal pub describes US-style modern wars of taking over a city without too much collateral damage, followed by "stability operations". That is, Baghdad.
[1] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6452...
The two documents view different kinds of war. The USMA pub describes historic WWII city defenses where the defenders held out against armor for long periods, at the cost of high casualties and destroying the city. That is, Stalingrad. The US doctrinal pub describes US-style modern wars of taking over a city without too much collateral damage, followed by "stability operations". That is, Baghdad.
[1] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6452...
Whether you will have one or the other depends also a lot on the determination, preparedness and fire-power of the defenders. In Iraq majority was against Saddam and didn't really want to fight, while people in Ukraine cities seem to be very united and determined to defend every house, and also have been supplied with a lot of personal anti-armor weapons and had months to plan the defenses - so regardless of the Russian doctrine, I really doubt Russian army will be able to move fast this time... unfortunately, as you said, that means a lot more civilian casualties, and a lot more destruction...
There's also a good chapter on urban defense in there. Chapter 5
John Spencer, 'Chair of Urban Warfare Studies, Modern War Institute', gives a twitter lecture to Ukrainians on urban warfare tactics to employ:
https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1497583307504046087
https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1497583307504046087
This is a war that is also fought online. It is extremely important to keep the flow of information running from Ukraine. Putin will very likely order to shut down cellphone coverage and the Internet in Ukraine as soon as they full enter Kyiv and he'll fear about reports of either mass killings among civilians and/or defeats among the Russian military; such information reaching both the world and Russian people is what he fears the most.
Shutting down communications would be also a problem for keeping the resistance interconnected, as common analog walkie talkies wouldn't be an option for being easy to tap, and they essentially speak the same language.
I wonder what can be done to quickly hand Ukrainians satellite Internet routers plus the infrastructure to build mesh stations and keep them connected.
I'm amazed they've managed to keep the country online for so long during this war. Points to solid groundwork since 2014.
Vice PM of Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/14975436332932669...
@elonmusk, while you try to colonize Mars — Russia try to occupy Ukraine! While your rockets successfully land from space — Russian rockets attack Ukrainian civil people! We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane Russians to stand.
Vice PM of Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/14975436332932669...
@elonmusk, while you try to colonize Mars — Russia try to occupy Ukraine! While your rockets successfully land from space — Russian rockets attack Ukrainian civil people! We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane Russians to stand.
> Putin will very likely order to shut down cellphone coverage and the Internet in Ukraine
It's easy to shut down internet in Belarus or Kazakhstan, because they deliberately wired their connectivity through single control point.
Ukraine has multiple cross-border connections and exchange points within, so it's not just a press of a button, but a full blown min-cut max-flow adventure.
It's easy to shut down internet in Belarus or Kazakhstan, because they deliberately wired their connectivity through single control point.
Ukraine has multiple cross-border connections and exchange points within, so it's not just a press of a button, but a full blown min-cut max-flow adventure.
Newer in HN: Urban warfare tips from a former Marine in the Ukraine subreddit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30476658
/s russian ddos attack
What legal rights and obligations does a military give to an enemy citizen who picks up a rifle and attacks when they are captured or surrender?
I'd think in this (and perhaps most) war(s) it comes down to the restraint, personal integrity or frustration of the individual soldier. Having just recently watched videos of (alleged) Russian saboteurs and infiltrators disguised in Ukrainian uniforms and GRADs shooting into residential areas, it appears Russia isn't above committing warcrimes even in these early stages of the invasion.
Not even speaking about sending in Chechen troops whose foremost reputation is perpetrating warcrime.
Not even speaking about sending in Chechen troops whose foremost reputation is perpetrating warcrime.
Interesting, just yesterday I discussed with a friend of mine how dumb it is for Putin to attack and try to capture Kiev, because urban warfare is very difficult and usually leads to very heavy casualties. She asked "why?" and I realised that I have an intuitive understanding about this because I've played Call of Duty and she hasn't (obviously not saying that CoD is representative of actual war, but you get the idea of what a sniper or machine gun nest in a city is just from game mechanics). Things that are obvious for some people are absolutely not obvious for others.
Btw, Pavlov's House defence is mentioned in the article and there's a corresponding mission in CoD.
Btw, Pavlov's House defence is mentioned in the article and there's a corresponding mission in CoD.
You can look at CoD and similar games as being very basic introductory material to military ground operations - building a surprising amount of intuition from a young age. It's also useful as a propaganda & recruitment tool.
It has been sooo cringy watching gamers try analyse actual military operations with zero competence, self-awareness, humility or respect for what is really at stake.
[deleted]
Also CoD and Battlefield aren't going to teach real tactics. Arma is the closest you'll get to what "real" war is like, but even that mostly forgets that logistics is about 90% of winning a war.
Not my point but...
What are the mechanisms used to flush out saboteurs? Some sort of explicit web of trust amongst locals? Automatic detention of loners?
All of those and lots more.
There will be roadblocks with controls. Some kind of identification system among the military (Think codenames like in Band of Brothers, where they all use "Thunder!" and the response "Flash!" during D-Day but a little more sophisticated these days).
And generally people talking to each other. It is easy to spot a different accent, someone looking like they are lost. Ever tried finding your way in a city like Kyiv without a map? And better don't let anybody catch you constantly looking at one/your phone while you are supposed to be a local.
Don't forget everybody is very, very attentive right now. People just going around without an apparent goal? Standing in small groups without a plan of what to do? Weird way of of greeting? All those things can get you caught.
Especially once the fighting in urban environments has been going on for a day or two small groups of soldiers tend to settle in. They guard the same street/bridge/etc. for hours upon hours (and days upon days). Lots of time to get used to the usual coming and going. And in turn it is very obvious when something unusual happens.
Just sit in a caffee for a day and watch people. Even after only one hours you have a pretty good grasp of the crowd and you start spotting different kinds of people. Just one look and you see if they are a student going to study (Bored). Or waiting for a date (Nervous). Or on the way to work (Exhausted).
And while considering all that (And tons more) remember a saboteur has to fool hundreds of people during hundreds of small interactions during one day for days/weeks on end. He only has to slip up once to get caught.
There will be roadblocks with controls. Some kind of identification system among the military (Think codenames like in Band of Brothers, where they all use "Thunder!" and the response "Flash!" during D-Day but a little more sophisticated these days).
And generally people talking to each other. It is easy to spot a different accent, someone looking like they are lost. Ever tried finding your way in a city like Kyiv without a map? And better don't let anybody catch you constantly looking at one/your phone while you are supposed to be a local.
Don't forget everybody is very, very attentive right now. People just going around without an apparent goal? Standing in small groups without a plan of what to do? Weird way of of greeting? All those things can get you caught.
Especially once the fighting in urban environments has been going on for a day or two small groups of soldiers tend to settle in. They guard the same street/bridge/etc. for hours upon hours (and days upon days). Lots of time to get used to the usual coming and going. And in turn it is very obvious when something unusual happens.
Just sit in a caffee for a day and watch people. Even after only one hours you have a pretty good grasp of the crowd and you start spotting different kinds of people. Just one look and you see if they are a student going to study (Bored). Or waiting for a date (Nervous). Or on the way to work (Exhausted).
And while considering all that (And tons more) remember a saboteur has to fool hundreds of people during hundreds of small interactions during one day for days/weeks on end. He only has to slip up once to get caught.
Supplies through a siege a logistical nightmare
Possibly via any of the EU countries sharing a border with Ukraine i.e. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary or Romania.
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/countries-in-europe/eu-coun...
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/countries-in-europe/eu-coun...
Airdrop it in Poland, Slovakia or Romania, drive it across the border.
So what happens when we try to airdrop something and an S-400 blows the plane out of the sky? Are we really going to expect that Russia will allow such interference? Would the West have allowed Russia to airdrop supplies to Iraq during the Iraq War in 2003.
The countries I mentioned are NATO countries... If Putin attacks US planes over NATO airspace he'll have a bigger problem...
Is Ukraine NATO airspace?
Through Poland would be my guess.
Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are also NATO members bordering Ukraine. Lots of ways in and out.
I’m wondering how supplying weapons is supposed to stay clear of Putin’s warning to other nations not to interfere or face instant consequences.
I don't think it is sensible at the moment to take into account what Putin says or has not said. It is obvious his words have no resemblance whatsoever to his actions. He does not need excuses to attack other countries.
Not intervening is a sure way to have delayed consequences from same aggressor, of same or worse manner. This isn't about Ukraine itself anymore, not with Russia/Soviet history of dominance, coercion, bullying and murder. Nothing has changed in the leadership, not for the better at least.
I really don't get people who are naive about Putin. He is extremely clear in his communication about his goals and he just started yet another phase of realizing them. For those won't bother going through them - the goal is pre-1989 setup at least within Europe and near east. All the countries formerly enslaved by Russian communism in some form have very strong objections, and well the rest of free world seems to agree.
I really don't get people who are naive about Putin. He is extremely clear in his communication about his goals and he just started yet another phase of realizing them. For those won't bother going through them - the goal is pre-1989 setup at least within Europe and near east. All the countries formerly enslaved by Russian communism in some form have very strong objections, and well the rest of free world seems to agree.
What is Putin going to do? Bomb a NATO country? That won’t end well for him or anyone else.
Putin has a proxy - Belorussia, controlled by a same-type ageing dictator Lukashenko. He is doing a military mobilization right now and has borders with Poland and Baltic states.
Belorussia attacking a NATO country ends at best in it being occupied by NATO, at worst in the same war between NATO and Russia that Putin don't want in the first place.
Belorussia is a member of Collective Security Treaty Organization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_O...).
Armenia is a member too, but Putin didn't help them in Nagorny Karabakh, saying it was Azerbaijan territory by international law. I beleive it was a demonstrative punishment for Armenian 2018 "velvet" revolution.
Kazakhstan is a member too. Putin used his army in Kazakhstan in January after Tokaev said that protesters are supposedly foreign terrorists.
Putin will not directly help Lukashenko against NATO countries on their territory, but is well capable of throwing his army to "protect" Belorussia from retaliation, including anti-air warfare.
Armenia is a member too, but Putin didn't help them in Nagorny Karabakh, saying it was Azerbaijan territory by international law. I beleive it was a demonstrative punishment for Armenian 2018 "velvet" revolution.
Kazakhstan is a member too. Putin used his army in Kazakhstan in January after Tokaev said that protesters are supposedly foreign terrorists.
Putin will not directly help Lukashenko against NATO countries on their territory, but is well capable of throwing his army to "protect" Belorussia from retaliation, including anti-air warfare.
This. A way worse result for Putin than Ukraine slowly becoming NATO-aligned is a sudden NATO-enforced regime change in his other (and currently reliable) European buffer state.
Putin cannot really do much. West fully joining the war would mean nuclear exchange. But Puting ending the world due to weapons shipments? Very unlikely.
[deleted]
What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what is Ukraine's end game? They seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying invading force so far, but what's next? They either run out of steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia, but then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either. Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope?
Throwing nukes at Ukraine is not going to happen. First, it will likely force the west into action (the current inaction is in part caused by the promise of no nukes, which would be void if Russia starts using them), but it comes with much larger problems. For one, the key locations in Ukraine are quite close to the Russian border and Kyiv and Moscow itself are only about 750km apart; the fallout would directly affect Russia and maybe even Moscow. Secondly, Ukraine is rather useless to Russia as a nuclear wasteland. They need the strategic position, yes, but that's quite useless if you can't keep troops there, and they also need the people and the infrastructure. That they currently keep civilian infrastructure mostly intact shows as much.
I'm pretty sure their endgame is to fend of Russia long enough until it ceases military action, possibly with loosing some border territory. Due to cost, sanctions and internal resistance, it's quite likely that they won't fight this forever.
I'm pretty sure their endgame is to fend of Russia long enough until it ceases military action, possibly with loosing some border territory. Due to cost, sanctions and internal resistance, it's quite likely that they won't fight this forever.
There's a few possible endgames for Ukraine.
The best scenario for Ukraine is that they're able to check the Russian invasion, and prevent troops from reaching and occupying Kyiv and other major cities, causing the war to drag on in a stalemate. If it goes well for them, the Russian will to press the invasion collapses, and they withdraw without winning any concessions. Note that I do not think this is at all likely.
The more likely scenario (that ends "well" for Ukraine) is that Russia successfully pushes its invasion to completion and installs a new government, but the invasion shifts to a phase of intense resistance (see, e.g., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan) that ultimately collapses the moment Russian troops pull out, perhaps with similar speed as the Afghani government collapsed after the US's withdrawal.
Both of those scenarios assume that a combination of economic sanctions and unpopularity of the war are sufficient to prevent Russia from maintaining troops in Ukraine indefinitely, which is an assumption that may or may not be true (and I think there are very few people who are qualified enough to credibly opine on its truth!). If the assumption is wrong, then the conflict might stabilize in a conflict that looks like Nargano-Karabakh (~30 years), Cyprus (~50 years), or Korea (~70 years).
It's possible to theorize about a scenario in which Ukraine does so well that they're able to counterattack and retake control of Crimea and the Donbass, or even punch into Russia, but such a scenario is so unlikely that I think it should rightly be considered fantasy.
The best scenario for Ukraine is that they're able to check the Russian invasion, and prevent troops from reaching and occupying Kyiv and other major cities, causing the war to drag on in a stalemate. If it goes well for them, the Russian will to press the invasion collapses, and they withdraw without winning any concessions. Note that I do not think this is at all likely.
The more likely scenario (that ends "well" for Ukraine) is that Russia successfully pushes its invasion to completion and installs a new government, but the invasion shifts to a phase of intense resistance (see, e.g., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan) that ultimately collapses the moment Russian troops pull out, perhaps with similar speed as the Afghani government collapsed after the US's withdrawal.
Both of those scenarios assume that a combination of economic sanctions and unpopularity of the war are sufficient to prevent Russia from maintaining troops in Ukraine indefinitely, which is an assumption that may or may not be true (and I think there are very few people who are qualified enough to credibly opine on its truth!). If the assumption is wrong, then the conflict might stabilize in a conflict that looks like Nargano-Karabakh (~30 years), Cyprus (~50 years), or Korea (~70 years).
It's possible to theorize about a scenario in which Ukraine does so well that they're able to counterattack and retake control of Crimea and the Donbass, or even punch into Russia, but such a scenario is so unlikely that I think it should rightly be considered fantasy.
I'm not 100% convinced about an unlikely Ukraine best scenario.
Much depends on the question if China is holding a lifeline for trading with Russia.
Considering international protest against Russia and that new Russian loans from China are currently blocked, it seems that Russia overestimated their friendship, which was "unbreakable" - https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1...
It seems that the unbreakable already shows some fractures.
Considering the vote against Russia wasn't vetoed by China and left Russia alone.
Additionally, i have more than average hope that the Russian population ( which has many relatives in Ukraine) is an underestimated variable by Putin in this mess.
Much depends on the question if China is holding a lifeline for trading with Russia.
Considering international protest against Russia and that new Russian loans from China are currently blocked, it seems that Russia overestimated their friendship, which was "unbreakable" - https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1...
It seems that the unbreakable already shows some fractures.
Considering the vote against Russia wasn't vetoed by China and left Russia alone.
Additionally, i have more than average hope that the Russian population ( which has many relatives in Ukraine) is an underestimated variable by Putin in this mess.
> Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved
Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one wants nuclear war.
Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one wants nuclear war.
Except potentially a desperate Putin. I do think the only hope is the Russian military not following him at that point.
> Except potentially a desperate Putin.
No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do so.
No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do so.
That's the conventional picture of Putin: he's a calculating, amoral, Machiavellian genius playing the west like a fiddle.
Recent events have... not been kind to that theory. Putin certainly seems off. Nothing about this invasion makes sense strategically, and that was true even back when we thought it would be executed competently!
Recent events have... not been kind to that theory. Putin certainly seems off. Nothing about this invasion makes sense strategically, and that was true even back when we thought it would be executed competently!
> Putin is not crazy
From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human being alive.
From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human being alive.
Putin is crazy. This was established as early as 1999, multiple public declarations in 2014.
If Putin fails this, it is over for him. There is no turning back from this and continuing to lead the country. The whole idea of invading can be classified as crazy and was not expected to actually happen by many. I just wouldn't underestimate him if he is backed into a corner.
>If Putin fails this, it is over for him.
Does not have to be the case. If the loyalists around him don't topple him he can sell this one way or another to the Russian public. I think a lot of people outside of Russia think it's some heavily censored, propaganda-fueled place. Most Russians are actually very skeptical of what their government says, it's very common to roll one's eyes at official statements. However, this does not change the wish to remain powerful even if just in a self-preserving image. If that does not work, the victimhood card also is often used successfully. If Putin can remain popular and the cronies around him don't replace him it would not have to be over for him at all.
Does not have to be the case. If the loyalists around him don't topple him he can sell this one way or another to the Russian public. I think a lot of people outside of Russia think it's some heavily censored, propaganda-fueled place. Most Russians are actually very skeptical of what their government says, it's very common to roll one's eyes at official statements. However, this does not change the wish to remain powerful even if just in a self-preserving image. If that does not work, the victimhood card also is often used successfully. If Putin can remain popular and the cronies around him don't replace him it would not have to be over for him at all.
Many things can be sold to the public, but it's particularly hard to sell a steady stream of coffins, and especially so if you can't showcase significant military gains.
Meh... some guard will stand up and give him a bullet. Nuclear war will never happen.
Ukraine's end game is to try to bleed Russia until they decide to withdraw. I don't think "hitting back" is ever on the table, if you mean Ukraine invading Russia. That's not going to happen.
Russia could still unload a few nukes. If you can't take Kiev, you can always nuke it. But that has a number of problems. One of the smaller ones is it's really hard to maintain the "oh, that's not really an independent nation, they're really part of Russia" lie when you nuke them.
Russia could still unload a few nukes. If you can't take Kiev, you can always nuke it. But that has a number of problems. One of the smaller ones is it's really hard to maintain the "oh, that's not really an independent nation, they're really part of Russia" lie when you nuke them.
I'm just guessing of course but I would think the goal is to defeat the invading force. Once they're gone there's not necessarily a need to hit back at Russia. My hope would be that Russia wouldn't send another round of attacks because the hotter this gets, the more risk of other countries coming to Ukraine's aid to stop atrocities. In fact that could even be a hope for Ukraine.
> What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what is Ukraine's end game?
As with all asymmetrical warfare against invasion and occupation, bleed the invader until the price exceeds what they are willing to pay.
> then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
That would probably be terminal for the Russian regime.
> The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either
Nuking Ukraine over conventional escalation against invasion lowers the expected marginal cost of NATO involvement.
Deterrence calculus relies as much on confidence that not crossing conventionally understood escalation triggers will not provoke the response one hopes to avoid as on the confidence that crossing them will.
> Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope
The collapse of will to fight and support the war, whether in the troops or the public, is always the ultimate constraint on war, whether the leadership drives to actual collapse or stops in advance because they see it coming.
As with all asymmetrical warfare against invasion and occupation, bleed the invader until the price exceeds what they are willing to pay.
> then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
That would probably be terminal for the Russian regime.
> The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction, they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either
Nuking Ukraine over conventional escalation against invasion lowers the expected marginal cost of NATO involvement.
Deterrence calculus relies as much on confidence that not crossing conventionally understood escalation triggers will not provoke the response one hopes to avoid as on the confidence that crossing them will.
> Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope
The collapse of will to fight and support the war, whether in the troops or the public, is always the ultimate constraint on war, whether the leadership drives to actual collapse or stops in advance because they see it coming.
Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States" might make the question easier. We have the benefit of hindsight there.
> Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United States"
Or just Russia with USSR, after all they lost a war in Afghanistan 3 decades before the US.
Or just Russia with USSR, after all they lost a war in Afghanistan 3 decades before the US.
No need for nukes. Kyiv will become a Sarajevo II. Our TV screens will be full of starving children which will eventually force a surrender (or a pretext for a NATO intervention.)
Or a Berlin Airlift II.
I didn’t know before I moved here that the GDR authorities officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart), which matches some of Putin’s recent rhetoric.
I didn’t know before I moved here that the GDR authorities officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart), which matches some of Putin’s recent rhetoric.
SpaceX Starship supply drops?
Cargo planes dropping pallets will be legitimate targets. I wonder if Starship would be fast and high enough for enough time that it would be hard to destroy before it landed.
Cargo planes dropping pallets will be legitimate targets. I wonder if Starship would be fast and high enough for enough time that it would be hard to destroy before it landed.
If they’re NATO aircraft, I suspect Russia wouldn’t want to attack them for similar reasons to why the USSR didn’t in Berlin ‘48-‘49.
Starship is unlikely to be ready soon enough, but if it was, as it’s a rocket I would worry about it triggering ICBM alarms.
Starship is unlikely to be ready soon enough, but if it was, as it’s a rocket I would worry about it triggering ICBM alarms.
Have you seen the map of areas around Kyiv? It's woods left and right and a flat land. How's a siege even going to work?
I suspect nuclear weapons are surprisingly useless for military purposes. They can flatten a city, but those who are underground may survive the blast and heat effects surprisingly well. The radiation is awful, but it comes mostly from fallout, and any attacking troops are as subject to that as the defenders.
I suppose a tactical nuke could be useful against a massed army formation, or blow a hole in a defensive line. But a force defending in depth doesn't present those kind of opportunities.
Nuclear weapons could be strategically important in their destruction of productive facilities and people, and their destruction of crucial point targets (such as an opponent's nuclear missiles). And of course they are enormously destructive and dirty. But they're mostly terror weapons.
And there are the enormous downsides of these things, which overwhelm any benefit they might accrue. There are reasons no one has used these things since WW II.
Chemical weapons are a different matter, and I am a little worried they may appear before this is all over.
I suppose a tactical nuke could be useful against a massed army formation, or blow a hole in a defensive line. But a force defending in depth doesn't present those kind of opportunities.
Nuclear weapons could be strategically important in their destruction of productive facilities and people, and their destruction of crucial point targets (such as an opponent's nuclear missiles). And of course they are enormously destructive and dirty. But they're mostly terror weapons.
And there are the enormous downsides of these things, which overwhelm any benefit they might accrue. There are reasons no one has used these things since WW II.
Chemical weapons are a different matter, and I am a little worried they may appear before this is all over.
Right, with Ukraine being supplied primarily by relatively untouchable (without massive escalation) NATO countries (and no end to that supply looking likely), the "total war"-style strategic bombing isn't really a meaningful aspect.
Additionally, killing large numbers of Ukrainian civilians (by conventional or nuclear bombing of the cities) would be crushing for the "liberating our people" narrative that Putin has relied on so far for support from the Russian people.
Additionally, killing large numbers of Ukrainian civilians (by conventional or nuclear bombing of the cities) would be crushing for the "liberating our people" narrative that Putin has relied on so far for support from the Russian people.
In the most positive light, from what i can tell from different sources.
The invasion is costing Russia 20 billion $ / day and the sanctions probably hastened shortage of money.
There is not enough rockets for Russia invading more than 10 days ( source: ex- Estland security chief)
The end goal for Ukraine at this moment would be to prove itselve as a democracy and hopefully hasten eg. NATO entry as a mean to deter future "issues".
And strengthening it's bound with the West and use IMF loans to rebuild for a future again. Away from Russia as they already expressed in the past.
NATO is a strategic alliance why has it's origin to deter a Russian threat. I believe they proved it, although they don't check all the boxes ( eg. No terrorial disputes allowed, that is why Russia invaded in the first place in 2014 after they expressed the will to join NATO).
Unfortunately, Ukraine is next to the Black Sea which is crucial for the Russian fleet. So it's a very difficult topic. Forcing Russia to move it's fleet safehaven isn't realistic ( i think).
The invasion is costing Russia 20 billion $ / day and the sanctions probably hastened shortage of money.
There is not enough rockets for Russia invading more than 10 days ( source: ex- Estland security chief)
The end goal for Ukraine at this moment would be to prove itselve as a democracy and hopefully hasten eg. NATO entry as a mean to deter future "issues".
And strengthening it's bound with the West and use IMF loans to rebuild for a future again. Away from Russia as they already expressed in the past.
NATO is a strategic alliance why has it's origin to deter a Russian threat. I believe they proved it, although they don't check all the boxes ( eg. No terrorial disputes allowed, that is why Russia invaded in the first place in 2014 after they expressed the will to join NATO).
Unfortunately, Ukraine is next to the Black Sea which is crucial for the Russian fleet. So it's a very difficult topic. Forcing Russia to move it's fleet safehaven isn't realistic ( i think).
Ukraine's endgame is to inflict so many casualties and destroy so much equipment that the Russians have no choice but to turn back in shame which along with sanctions from the rest of the world will hopefully lead to an uprising by the Russian people and an overthrow of Putin and his Oligarchs.
And if anyone is skeptical this can work, I refer you to Vietnam, Afghanistan, the American Revolution, and a few cases where even the Romans would decide to pack it in with a “these people are crazy, they’re never going to stop and it’s not worth it.”
It’s too optimistic to think this will be the end of Putin, but if by chance it happens, it will not be the first time a catastrophic war lead to the overthrow of the Russian government.
It’s too optimistic to think this will be the end of Putin, but if by chance it happens, it will not be the first time a catastrophic war lead to the overthrow of the Russian government.
For me the greatest outcome is not that Ukraine successfully defends itself but that the Russian people defeat Putin themselves, that this war opens their eyes to a change that is actually possible by the masses.
Absolutely. I also think that calls for other countries to help Ukraine with troops are premature.
Look at Afghanistan, the US spent decades with troops on the ground, rebuilding every single institution only to have it all collapse before they even pulled out. In the end the people of Afghanistan didn't feel any ownership in any of it because they didn't build it, so when it came time to defend it they didn't.
I think that the US has learned from that, and in the 8 years since Putin invaded Crimea they have been equipping and training the Ukrainians to defend their own country. If the people of Ukraine make it out of this as an independent country it will a historical moment signifying that Ukraine as a nation is here to stay for the long term because their citizens believe in the institutions and the ideals of their nation.
What I hope for the most from this conflict is the development of stable democracies in both Ukraine and Russia.
Look at Afghanistan, the US spent decades with troops on the ground, rebuilding every single institution only to have it all collapse before they even pulled out. In the end the people of Afghanistan didn't feel any ownership in any of it because they didn't build it, so when it came time to defend it they didn't.
I think that the US has learned from that, and in the 8 years since Putin invaded Crimea they have been equipping and training the Ukrainians to defend their own country. If the people of Ukraine make it out of this as an independent country it will a historical moment signifying that Ukraine as a nation is here to stay for the long term because their citizens believe in the institutions and the ideals of their nation.
What I hope for the most from this conflict is the development of stable democracies in both Ukraine and Russia.
Willing to put money on any of that?
Kyiv will fall. But Kyiv is not whole of Ukraine. West Ukraine hates russians a lot more, it has a long border with Polland. There is something like 1million Ukranians living in Polland.. there is already a stream of volunteers crossing the border heading east.
Cost of Ukrainian occupation is going to be high. Can that stop russians? we don't know, but they will pay in blood and money. This is not Syria or Georgia where small professional units could make a difference. This is a huge country with a big population and a long border through which weapons and volunteers will flow.
I had my doubts about Ukranian will to fight(I was born in Kyiv), I was wrong. I think Putin miscalculated quite a bit.
Cost of Ukrainian occupation is going to be high. Can that stop russians? we don't know, but they will pay in blood and money. This is not Syria or Georgia where small professional units could make a difference. This is a huge country with a big population and a long border through which weapons and volunteers will flow.
I had my doubts about Ukranian will to fight(I was born in Kyiv), I was wrong. I think Putin miscalculated quite a bit.
The terms of surrender Putin is asking for are:
- Ukraine remains neutral
- No foreign weapons in Ukraine
No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you’re talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
- Ukraine remains neutral
- No foreign weapons in Ukraine
No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you’re talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
> Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.
It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.
> So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by Western masters
Regardless of your political opinion, it doesn't negate the fact that people still want the freedom to choose
Regardless of your political opinion, it doesn't negate the fact that people still want the freedom to choose
Ok that’s fine. That freedom comes along with consequences for your actions. So don’t complain when they manifest
"stop attacking yourself with my army" is not exactly a philosophical slam dunk.
So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by Western masters
Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine from being used by West. How noble.
Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
No - Russia is defending the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics where Ukrainian nationalists have killed over 14,000 men, women, and children over the past eight years by shelling civilian areas.
The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.
edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?
The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.
edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?
Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country if they do not abide to the request).
Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?
Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?
I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.
Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose.
Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.
Ugh. One of the reasons the Minsk agreements failed is because Russia said it's not a related party and as such, it doesn't apply to them.
So it's Russia that completely disregarded Minsk II agreements.
So it's Russia that completely disregarded Minsk II agreements.
So that’s why Ukraine couldn’t honor the ceasefire for eight years?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Russia created a gray zone war in the first place. Support in that area for Russia was reduced from 54% to 14% over the following 8 years.
That's one of the reasons they invaded instead of continueing the gray zone conflict.
If you are suggesting that Ukraine is at fault, you are ignoring basic facts.
Russia created a gray zone war in the first place. Support in that area for Russia was reduced from 54% to 14% over the following 8 years.
That's one of the reasons they invaded instead of continueing the gray zone conflict.
If you are suggesting that Ukraine is at fault, you are ignoring basic facts.
Anyone who knows the history of the relationships between Russia and all of its neighbors understands that no such terms can be accepted.
Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice neighbor.
For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched unprovoked attacks against them.
Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.
Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.
The consequences were always that later Russia came with even more shameless demands or it just attacked and occupied partially or totally the neighbor.
There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a different manner than his ancestors, so there is no rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian demands can guarantee that they will stop at that, instead of demanding even more later.
For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:
Where are the frontiers of Russia ? Wherever they want ...
Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice neighbor.
For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched unprovoked attacks against them.
Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.
Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.
The consequences were always that later Russia came with even more shameless demands or it just attacked and occupied partially or totally the neighbor.
There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a different manner than his ancestors, so there is no rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian demands can guarantee that they will stop at that, instead of demanding even more later.
For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:
Where are the frontiers of Russia ? Wherever they want ...
But now Russia brings foreign weapons to Ukraine, right?
Putin literally asked the ukrainian armed forces to putsch against Zelenskyy yesterday.[1]
The whole "reason" of the russian invasion is the pretext of a "de-nazifikation" of the ukrainian government (which is a *insane* claim).
It appears very strange to me to think that Putin will accept anything other than a total regime change.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-milit...
The whole "reason" of the russian invasion is the pretext of a "de-nazifikation" of the ukrainian government (which is a *insane* claim).
It appears very strange to me to think that Putin will accept anything other than a total regime change.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-milit...
Ukraine put Stepan Bandera on a postage stamp. How does that happen without Nazis in the government?
Not from Ukraine, so I can't answer the questions.
But it seems to me that Putin lies a lot. So who knows what the acctual terms he wants is?
What’s an example?
You mean besides the one where he said he wasn't planning an invasion? Use Google and I'm sure you can find some. I have to say, you really must be enjoying the kool-aid. Every leader tells lies. If you really can't think of an example of Putin lying, then I feel sorry for your naivety or complete and utter pathological denial.
If it reaches that point, wouldn't a desperate Putin likely launch nukes as a last resort before being overthrown?
You need to understand what Putin believes.
He believes in the Russian Empire, in the "Third Rome" and Ukraine is important because Kyiv was the capital of the first Rus empire 1000 years ago.
It's also the "origin myth" that gets propagated to the Russian armed forces (see Cathedral of the Armed Forces) and public. Also, will the oligarchs continue to support him it he just takes a scorched earth approach? Will the armed forces? If the myth fades who will follow?
He believes in the Russian Empire, in the "Third Rome" and Ukraine is important because Kyiv was the capital of the first Rus empire 1000 years ago.
It's also the "origin myth" that gets propagated to the Russian armed forces (see Cathedral of the Armed Forces) and public. Also, will the oligarchs continue to support him it he just takes a scorched earth approach? Will the armed forces? If the myth fades who will follow?
The military endgame sadly is somewhere between a destroyed Ukraine in perpetual conflict and regime change, depending on the efficacy of Ukrainian resistance.
Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible idea and someone else's fault.
This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though, Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not necessary.
The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible idea and someone else's fault.
This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though, Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not necessary.
The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
> I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).
They would never have been enough; that was the abusive partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...).
Honestly, I fear the resistance being too effective.
Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the defensive.
They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve their goals they will escalate. They also own the most nuclear weapons of any country on earth.
This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put enemies in a corner.
This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.
Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the defensive.
They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve their goals they will escalate. They also own the most nuclear weapons of any country on earth.
This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put enemies in a corner.
This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.
Sure, they could nuke them, but what would they gain?
I don't think, Putin wants radioactive wastelands so close to his border. And I think the political implications, even in Russia itself would be devastating for him.
I don't think, Putin wants radioactive wastelands so close to his border. And I think the political implications, even in Russia itself would be devastating for him.
> They seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying invading force so far, but what's next? They either run out of steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia, but then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with it.
Two options:
1) Push until Rostov, and take Black Sea access from Russia. If they manage to destroy a big portion of invading force, there will certainly be nobody to defend it, as they already "spent" a big part of Southern Military District force. They will also be under cover of their own air defence, and Russia not, as it already moved all its Buks into Ukraine.
2) A daring move to capture Volgograd. Why? Again, its would be defenders are in forests of Belarus now, doing nothing, running out of supplies. Volgograd is the most militarily significant city in South Russia.
Big portion of of Russia's low readiness units are stationed in the middle of nowhere in Urals, and West Siberia.
The elite Souther Military District (circle sign) units are already locked in Crimea, and inside Southern Ukraine
Two options:
1) Push until Rostov, and take Black Sea access from Russia. If they manage to destroy a big portion of invading force, there will certainly be nobody to defend it, as they already "spent" a big part of Southern Military District force. They will also be under cover of their own air defence, and Russia not, as it already moved all its Buks into Ukraine.
2) A daring move to capture Volgograd. Why? Again, its would be defenders are in forests of Belarus now, doing nothing, running out of supplies. Volgograd is the most militarily significant city in South Russia.
Big portion of of Russia's low readiness units are stationed in the middle of nowhere in Urals, and West Siberia.
The elite Souther Military District (circle sign) units are already locked in Crimea, and inside Southern Ukraine
> Volgograd
The motherland falls?
The motherland falls?
100% Putin is the bad guy here. There's no justification for invasion. None.
That being said, we need to look at how we got here, maybe what should've happened instead and what can be done to hopefully defuse and resolve this situation.
First, dangling the carrot of NATO membership, which because with George W Bush's swansong in a NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 (and hasn't been changed by any subsequent administration) was dangerous and deliberately antagonistic to Russia. This was compounded by successive waves of expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the entity NATO was supposedly created to defend against.
Second, Zelensky seems out of his depth here (geopolitically) and should've realized this. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 should've raised the alarm bells here both that embracing to the West was dangerous and because of the threat of Russia unlikely to ever happen. This means another route needs to be paved.
Third, outright refusing to take NATO membership off the negotiating table by the US (which, as noted, was never going to happen) was downright irresponsible and clueless, particularly when the US would never put troops into Ukraine and directly get into a military conflict with Russia. That alone should prompt a less hardline approach.
This brings me to the substance of the article and a model that should've been pursued by the Ukrainian government. And that is one of neutrality, probably most similar to the Swiss model. This would include:
1. A consitutional amendment against joining any military alliance;
2. A consitutional amendment for military neutrality that might include, for example, not allowing passage by any foreign military without, say, the approval of both Russia and NATO;
3. National service, say 12 months.
4. A policy of building a defensive army. That means fixed military installations, particularly on entry points into Ukraine. It also means tactical rather than strategic weapons;
5. Equipping and training armed services in insurgency. Hardened communications, access to caches of small arms in the vent of invasion and access to weapons that have shown to be devastating against an occupying force (eg portable SAMs).
6. Exercises and planning for defending Ukraine against large outside military forces. The idea here isn't necessarily to win in such a conflict but to make the cost of victory and occupation so high as to deter it from happening.
You would probably need additional steps to protect legitimate Russian economic interests, most specifically pipelines of oil and gas to the EU and deepwater port access to the Black Sea.
As for disputed regions, you may need to adopt a model similar to, say, Nortern Ireland of joint control and semi-autonomy while still being with the borders of Ukraine.
That being said, we need to look at how we got here, maybe what should've happened instead and what can be done to hopefully defuse and resolve this situation.
First, dangling the carrot of NATO membership, which because with George W Bush's swansong in a NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 (and hasn't been changed by any subsequent administration) was dangerous and deliberately antagonistic to Russia. This was compounded by successive waves of expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the entity NATO was supposedly created to defend against.
Second, Zelensky seems out of his depth here (geopolitically) and should've realized this. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 should've raised the alarm bells here both that embracing to the West was dangerous and because of the threat of Russia unlikely to ever happen. This means another route needs to be paved.
Third, outright refusing to take NATO membership off the negotiating table by the US (which, as noted, was never going to happen) was downright irresponsible and clueless, particularly when the US would never put troops into Ukraine and directly get into a military conflict with Russia. That alone should prompt a less hardline approach.
This brings me to the substance of the article and a model that should've been pursued by the Ukrainian government. And that is one of neutrality, probably most similar to the Swiss model. This would include:
1. A consitutional amendment against joining any military alliance;
2. A consitutional amendment for military neutrality that might include, for example, not allowing passage by any foreign military without, say, the approval of both Russia and NATO;
3. National service, say 12 months.
4. A policy of building a defensive army. That means fixed military installations, particularly on entry points into Ukraine. It also means tactical rather than strategic weapons;
5. Equipping and training armed services in insurgency. Hardened communications, access to caches of small arms in the vent of invasion and access to weapons that have shown to be devastating against an occupying force (eg portable SAMs).
6. Exercises and planning for defending Ukraine against large outside military forces. The idea here isn't necessarily to win in such a conflict but to make the cost of victory and occupation so high as to deter it from happening.
You would probably need additional steps to protect legitimate Russian economic interests, most specifically pipelines of oil and gas to the EU and deepwater port access to the Black Sea.
As for disputed regions, you may need to adopt a model similar to, say, Nortern Ireland of joint control and semi-autonomy while still being with the borders of Ukraine.
What about incorporating Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Russia into NATO?
Ukraine gets the Donbas back in return for international recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
Fanciful, I know. And questionable whether Article 8 would hold up. But advantages:
1. End to the conflict 2. Security guarantees for all of Europe 3. Repurposing of NATO from anti Russia alliance to anti China alliance, ie pivot to Asia
Ukraine gets the Donbas back in return for international recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
Fanciful, I know. And questionable whether Article 8 would hold up. But advantages:
1. End to the conflict 2. Security guarantees for all of Europe 3. Repurposing of NATO from anti Russia alliance to anti China alliance, ie pivot to Asia
It's very difficult to imagine a world where Russia would accept being in an alliance in opposition to its largest (in economy, population, border, and area) neighbor and its current largest trading partner.
Not to mention that this current war would look like a sibling fight relative to what China would do if it saw a risk of NATO first-strike capabilities coming anywhere near its borders.
Not to mention that this current war would look like a sibling fight relative to what China would do if it saw a risk of NATO first-strike capabilities coming anywhere near its borders.
Why would someone trust this.
Russia recognised the ukrainian borders in 1994 in exchange for them giving up their nukes.
Russia recognised the ukrainian borders in 1994 in exchange for them giving up their nukes.
14 nations have been added to NATO since 1994 [1], most of them former Warsaw Pact countries.
It's hotly debated but alleged that the US gave verbal assurances NATO wouldn't expand east in discussions about German reunification.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Adriatic_C...
It's hotly debated but alleged that the US gave verbal assurances NATO wouldn't expand east in discussions about German reunification.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Adriatic_C...
And Finland has a petition from the population that is requesting to join NATO.
It sure looks like it's more a fault of Russia than NATO.
It sure looks like it's more a fault of Russia than NATO.
you're forgetting that those countries are not mere pawns...they have their own will and decided to join NATO and EU out of own accord, precisely because they knew how dangerous Russia is.
An appeasement-style solution like this is predicated on the assumption that the expansion of NATO is the actual reason behind this war, and not just a convenient pretext. There's no consensus about that. Putin has a history of meddling in neighbouring states, and could use a distraction from domestic problems.
I doubt it. Even fully “neutral” Ukraine, if modern, democratic, prosperous, would have been extremely dangerous to any corrupt autocrat in Russia. This is appeasement approach that WWII should have taught us not to take. Russian official are literally complaining about weak West response. Instead the NATO membership should have been accelerated, with the path for Russia to enter it in the future. Even Putin mentioned he asked Clinton about it. But he is obviously the sticking point.
The problem with the appeasement argument is that we're not talking about 1939 Germany. We're talking about Russia, the country with the largest nuclear arsenal on EArth (yes, even larger than the US nuclear arsenal). The analogy isn't remotely similar or appropriate.
Let me put it another way: what is the alternative? We're clearly not going to put boots on the ground. NATO does not want a member country directly on the Russian border, particularly a large border as Ukraine and Russia have. The US (and the rest of NATO for that matter) simply does not want to get dragged into a conflict on Russia's borders. That's it.
The US would never accept a military alliance between Russia or China with Mexico and Canada that allows Russia or China to build military bases along the US border. So why should we be surprised that the "F** the USSR" military alliance may end up building bases on Russia's borders?
Let me put it another way: what is the alternative? We're clearly not going to put boots on the ground. NATO does not want a member country directly on the Russian border, particularly a large border as Ukraine and Russia have. The US (and the rest of NATO for that matter) simply does not want to get dragged into a conflict on Russia's borders. That's it.
The US would never accept a military alliance between Russia or China with Mexico and Canada that allows Russia or China to build military bases along the US border. So why should we be surprised that the "F** the USSR" military alliance may end up building bases on Russia's borders?
> NATO does not want a member country directly on the Russian border
There are already two NATO countries directly on the Russian border. Four if you count Kaliningrad. Five if Finland joins.
Edit:
I’ve looked at the map and it turns out Norway also borders Russia, so +1 to all the calculations :)
There are already two NATO countries directly on the Russian border. Four if you count Kaliningrad. Five if Finland joins.
Edit:
I’ve looked at the map and it turns out Norway also borders Russia, so +1 to all the calculations :)
I should probably say a significant border with Russia. Norway's border with Russia for example is a narrow sliver of mountains. It's completely insignificant. Finland isn't part of this because they're not a NATO member. The Baltic states (Latvia and Estonia; Lithuania doesn't obrder Russia) are a little more nuanced. I imagine that was a tough pill for Russia to swallow but again the borders are small. Poland and Kaliningrad is also more of a technaclity.
This map [1] puts the size of the borders in perspective and also why Russia has made Belarus effectively a client state. And also why Georgia is in a similar position as a buffer between Russia and Turkey.
But Ukraine is of particular strategic importance to Russia not only because of the expansive border but because Ukraine is relatively flat. Here's a map of the Operation Barbarossa invasion route [2]. It was largely through what is now Belarus to the north and Ukraine to the south.
I can't find a similar map but I believe Napoleon followed a similar route.
While niether of these two campaigns were successful, quite famously, it's merely a function of geography.
Additionally, Ukraine's position is even more significant because it potentially threaten's Russia's access to the Black Sea and the occupited territory of Crimea.
[1]: https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/countries_europe_map-L.jp...
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Marcks_P...
This map [1] puts the size of the borders in perspective and also why Russia has made Belarus effectively a client state. And also why Georgia is in a similar position as a buffer between Russia and Turkey.
But Ukraine is of particular strategic importance to Russia not only because of the expansive border but because Ukraine is relatively flat. Here's a map of the Operation Barbarossa invasion route [2]. It was largely through what is now Belarus to the north and Ukraine to the south.
I can't find a similar map but I believe Napoleon followed a similar route.
While niether of these two campaigns were successful, quite famously, it's merely a function of geography.
Additionally, Ukraine's position is even more significant because it potentially threaten's Russia's access to the Black Sea and the occupited territory of Crimea.
[1]: https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/countries_europe_map-L.jp...
[2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Marcks_P...
"Norway's border with Russia for example is a narrow sliver of mountains."
Wrong. It's fairly flat, mostly tundra and swampland.
"Additionally, Ukraine's position is even more significant because it potentially threaten's Russia's access to the Black Sea and the occupited territory of Crimea."
Wrong. Just look at a map.
Given this is already a pivot to sharing a "significant" border with NATO, perhaps you should be a bit more discerning with your statements.
Wrong. It's fairly flat, mostly tundra and swampland.
"Additionally, Ukraine's position is even more significant because it potentially threaten's Russia's access to the Black Sea and the occupited territory of Crimea."
Wrong. Just look at a map.
Given this is already a pivot to sharing a "significant" border with NATO, perhaps you should be a bit more discerning with your statements.
The importance of geography in Eastern Europe [1].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
If you really want to be pedantic, the US and Russia have a sea border.
If you count EEZ's, Russia's and Turkey's EEZ border each other in the Black Sea, as would Romania's if you believe Crimea (and hence its associated EEZ) to be part of Russia.
If you count EEZ's, Russia's and Turkey's EEZ border each other in the Black Sea, as would Romania's if you believe Crimea (and hence its associated EEZ) to be part of Russia.
So just to be clear you think in the face of having territory annexed they should have rolled over and done what Putin wanted?
Ukraine never joined NATO and never joined the EU.
They still got invaded.
You've written a lot of words justifying the invasion despite saying there was no justification.
Ukraine never joined NATO and never joined the EU.
They still got invaded.
You've written a lot of words justifying the invasion despite saying there was no justification.
If anything, the invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that all the countries clamoring to join were right all along.
I doubt any concession from the Ukraine would satisfy Putin. See https://fablesofaesop.com/the-wolf-and-the-lamb.html
That's in a similar vein to the "Putin is a madman" arguments. Whether or not it's true, it's completley unhelpful. Simple game theory here gives you the options of trying diplomatic options and not trying. If he's a madman it doesn't matter. If ithe's not it might.
What that actually shows you is there is literally no downside to diplomacy because at worst it doesn't matter. To assume that your opponent isn't at least a semi-rational actor that wants something they're prepared to negotiate for is just throwing your hands in the air and saying "I've tried nothing but I'm all out of ideas".
What that actually shows you is there is literally no downside to diplomacy because at worst it doesn't matter. To assume that your opponent isn't at least a semi-rational actor that wants something they're prepared to negotiate for is just throwing your hands in the air and saying "I've tried nothing but I'm all out of ideas".
The downside to diplomacy is that if it's ineffective, by the time you get to other means, it can be too late because the victim is already dead.
And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries (internal agitprop is very different, by the way!) tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of diplomacy that is not backed by real and credible threat of force in this case.
And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries (internal agitprop is very different, by the way!) tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of diplomacy that is not backed by real and credible threat of force in this case.
> The downside to diplomacy is that if it's ineffective
There are no other means when dealing with a nuclear superpower. Diplomacy is precisely necessary because the US is never going to get into direct conflict with Russia either directly or through NATO. Not for Ukraine. The US is happy to dangle the carrot and throw some token "lethal aid" across the border but that's it. Sanctions will never work. They never have, not in forcing regime change or capitulation. So what other options are there?
> by the time you get to other means, it can be too late because the victim is already dead.
There are no other means and we've been talking about the Russian military "exercises" for literal months. How much time do you need? Since there aren't any other options what are you losing?
> And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries
Russia has almost certainly sought and gained China's asurances of staying out of it. In the Security Council vote 3 nations abstained: China, India and the UAE. In fact Putin visited China during the Olympics. In hindsight it seems that Ukraine was a discussion point and may well have been the reason for the trip.
All of these pro-Western Imperialist drones (often Americans) who want to "be tough on Russia" are just virtue signaling or parroting someone who is. They like to throw around words like "appeasement" and don't offer any solutions of how to deal with a nuclear superpower that we will never fight a direct war with.
There are no other means when dealing with a nuclear superpower. Diplomacy is precisely necessary because the US is never going to get into direct conflict with Russia either directly or through NATO. Not for Ukraine. The US is happy to dangle the carrot and throw some token "lethal aid" across the border but that's it. Sanctions will never work. They never have, not in forcing regime change or capitulation. So what other options are there?
> by the time you get to other means, it can be too late because the victim is already dead.
There are no other means and we've been talking about the Russian military "exercises" for literal months. How much time do you need? Since there aren't any other options what are you losing?
> And the fact that Russia made very little effort to justify its invasion to other countries
Russia has almost certainly sought and gained China's asurances of staying out of it. In the Security Council vote 3 nations abstained: China, India and the UAE. In fact Putin visited China during the Olympics. In hindsight it seems that Ukraine was a discussion point and may well have been the reason for the trip.
All of these pro-Western Imperialist drones (often Americans) who want to "be tough on Russia" are just virtue signaling or parroting someone who is. They like to throw around words like "appeasement" and don't offer any solutions of how to deal with a nuclear superpower that we will never fight a direct war with.
Military force is not a binary. Just as Russia had a choice of going to the de facto borders of LDNR, to their claimed borders, or for Ukraine as a whole - and did the latter. But for effective response, sticking to pre-war borders would suffice - and would not be enough to trigger a nuclear response from Russia.
What you call "diplomacy" seems to be a double-speak for appeasement. Your claim, in essence, is that with nukes in the picture, appeasement is the only option left. To that my question is: where do you plan to stop? If the West continues to back down in the face of direct military confrontation, because it might escalate into nuclear, but Russia doesn't harbor the same sentiments, it will take a while before it might cross your personal red line. But by that time, you might find that others aren't willing to fight for you, just as you weren't willing to fight for them.
Oh, and I'm Russian.
What you call "diplomacy" seems to be a double-speak for appeasement. Your claim, in essence, is that with nukes in the picture, appeasement is the only option left. To that my question is: where do you plan to stop? If the West continues to back down in the face of direct military confrontation, because it might escalate into nuclear, but Russia doesn't harbor the same sentiments, it will take a while before it might cross your personal red line. But by that time, you might find that others aren't willing to fight for you, just as you weren't willing to fight for them.
Oh, and I'm Russian.
How many examples do you need to finally realize that the naive appeasement strategy does not work with Putin 10, 20?
What about the same advice for the citizens of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan? Should they have fought for their liberty against US troops the same way?
US troops have never invaded Iran. Maybe you are thinking of the 1980 Iraqi invasion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran
The 1953 coup in Iran was organized/supported by the CIA, but did not involve US troops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
During the 1979–1980 US embassy hostage crisis, there was an aborted attempt to rescue American hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
The 1953 coup in Iran was organized/supported by the CIA, but did not involve US troops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
During the 1979–1980 US embassy hostage crisis, there was an aborted attempt to rescue American hostages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
https://web.archive.org/web/20220223141210/https://mwi.usma....