What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped(reuters.com)
reuters.com
What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-air-force-us-officials-experts-stumped-2022-03-01/
790 comments
suzerainty
You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one.
a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy
You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one.
a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy
It's basic vocabulary in poli-sci or international relations studies or circles. Less obscure (in the context of those fields) than much of the engineering, math, and computer nerd jargon that gets thrown around on here regularly. Likely to be encountered in adjacent fields, notably history. It's about one small notch more obscure than the term "hegemony".
I've never heard it before and I watch Rick and Morty.
This is the funniest comment I've ever seen on HN, I snorted
I debated deleting it as it's more of a reddit sort of comment, but I like adding a bit of lightness to HN here and there.
I appreciated the check on the unnecessary condescension
[deleted]
It could also be more common for non-native English speakers, for example native speakers of Romance languages.
I'm reasonably sure we were taught about suzerainty ("suzeranitate" in Romanian) during high school history lessons.
I'm reasonably sure we were taught about suzerainty ("suzeranitate" in Romanian) during high school history lessons.
It's definitely more a "college level" term in the US, but very much undergrad, if that makes sense. Good chance someone who even minored in certain social science fields will know it (decent odds they'll have employed it on a written exam a time or three), plus most people who just have a hobby-level but long-running interest in those kinds of things. A good high school course might expose students to the term, but I doubt it's common, at least outside elite prep schools.
I definitely only know this word from ancient Chinese history in undergrad. The lesser kindgoms were always having to send tribute to the Emperors.
It's an exquisite word. I too was ignorant of its existence until I played Civilization VI, where you can become the suzerain of a city-state.
I also only know the word suzerain from Civ VI haha. Certainly learnt a lot more history and gained a lot more interest in historical texts after playing Civ, far more so than school ever did....
I learned “revanchist” from Europa Universalis IV and it has been a pretty useful word in the past week.
I might not have an IR degree, but for the first time I feel like playing Crusader Kings and Civilization has finally paid off.
In foreign relations, the word is ambiguous.
For example, in early 20th (late 19th?) century, the UK recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet.
It basically meant “British India’s borders end at the Tibetan border, and we won’t do business with anyone in the Tibetan side of the border without running it by the Chinese first.”
Then in the early 21st Century the UK recognized the sovereignty of China over Tibet in exchange for Chinese money to some international orgs.
But all that happened was the British position became more precise.
It’s a compromise word to recognize the reality in the ground, while kicking diplomatic issues down the road.
Parts of the modern day Indian/China border are referred to as the “line of actual control.”
For example, in early 20th (late 19th?) century, the UK recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet.
It basically meant “British India’s borders end at the Tibetan border, and we won’t do business with anyone in the Tibetan side of the border without running it by the Chinese first.”
Then in the early 21st Century the UK recognized the sovereignty of China over Tibet in exchange for Chinese money to some international orgs.
But all that happened was the British position became more precise.
It’s a compromise word to recognize the reality in the ground, while kicking diplomatic issues down the road.
Parts of the modern day Indian/China border are referred to as the “line of actual control.”
Empires, puppet states, colonies, and territories are mostly pre 20th century relics today, and we've lost the vocabulary for talking about them. Pundits still throw those words around, but mostly as exaggerations.
This is a 19th century war with 21st century weapons. It's from the bad old days when various European states built empires - the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British Empire, Imperial Russia, and the Imperial State of Germany. For most of the 18th and 19th century, and up to WWI, there were wars around the fringes of those empires. Not hugely destructive ones, because nobody had enough firepower.
Putin seems to want to go back to that era. Not, as some people think, to the USSR era. Read that accidentally posted Russian victory press release.[1]
It's a good time to look at 19th century European history and the runup to WWI. What's happening is all too similar.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
This is a 19th century war with 21st century weapons. It's from the bad old days when various European states built empires - the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British Empire, Imperial Russia, and the Imperial State of Germany. For most of the 18th and 19th century, and up to WWI, there were wars around the fringes of those empires. Not hugely destructive ones, because nobody had enough firepower.
Putin seems to want to go back to that era. Not, as some people think, to the USSR era. Read that accidentally posted Russian victory press release.[1]
It's a good time to look at 19th century European history and the runup to WWI. What's happening is all too similar.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
> This is a 19th century war with 21st century weapons.
And we hope that it doesn’t turn into a 20th century war with 21st century weapons.
And we hope that it doesn’t turn into a 20th century war with 21st century weapons.
> This is a 19th century war with 21st century weapons.
Very little of the weapons involved are actually 21st century. Most are 20th century.
Very little of the weapons involved are actually 21st century. Most are 20th century.
Depends on if MANPADS, TOW, and Drones become the dominant forces of the battlefield.
All of those are definitely 20th century weapons.
I learned the word decades ago from WTTW in Chicago late one Sunday night when the Doctor and Romana were seeking out the forth segment to the key of time.
Dr Who - The Androids of Tara
Princess Strella (Mary Tamm), nor Romana(also Mary Tamm), would ever willingly pledge their suzerainty to Count Grendel of Gracht(Peter Jeffrey), which is why he tried to set up a shotgun wedding.
Dr Who - The Androids of Tara
Princess Strella (Mary Tamm), nor Romana(also Mary Tamm), would ever willingly pledge their suzerainty to Count Grendel of Gracht(Peter Jeffrey), which is why he tried to set up a shotgun wedding.
DOCTOR: Romana?
ZADEK: That's the Princess Strella.
(Grendel moves behind her.)
STRELLA: (deadpan) I, Princess Strella, descendant of the Royal Kings of Tara, Mistress of the domains of Thorvald, Mortgarde and Freya, do humbly offer my loyalty to the King and do hereby recognise his SUZERAINTY over me and all whom I command.
(Strella kneels. The Doctor grabs the sceptre and runs down the steps.)
DOCTOR: No!
(Everyone gasps as he hits Strella over the head with the sceptre!)
I bet OP plays Civilization.
suzerain (n.)
"sovereign, ruler," 1807, from French suzerain (14c., Old French suserain), noun use of adjective meaning "sovereign but not supreme,"
Sovereign but not supreme is a good way to remember it, it’s like a baby name of ‘supreme’ :)
"sovereign, ruler," 1807, from French suzerain (14c., Old French suserain), noun use of adjective meaning "sovereign but not supreme,"
Sovereign but not supreme is a good way to remember it, it’s like a baby name of ‘supreme’ :)
Using Anglo-Saxon etymons it would be "overlord", I guess.
Ah, but that also implies we're missing "underlord" to go with it then.
I tried to reduce that definition for readability: "suzerain noun: internally autonomous vassal state w/ externally dominated foreign affairs."
What dictionary is your source of truth? I've been using Webster [1] but I feel like there's probably a better option.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/
What dictionary is your source of truth? I've been using Webster [1] but I feel like there's probably a better option.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/
I assumed it was a word I didn't know, right-click Googled it, and then TIL. It feels like a good choice of word.
I hardly ever saw this word used in English, but in Russian it is fairly common in historical texts.
I first learned the word suzerainty from the game Trails from zero, where Crossbell is a vassal state that is held suzerain by the two dominant states surrounding it, Erebonia and Calvard. I first thought it was a typo too.
Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government?
>> Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government?
This word was new to me, but looking it up I wanted to say "Yes" but have since changed to "no". Definition:
Suzerainty (American accent: soo-zer-en-tee) happens when a country X has its own government but cannot act independently because of a more powerful country Y. This more powerful country Y is called the suzerain and can usually control the foreign relations of X (how X interacts with other countries).
When it comes to foreign policy in the US, it is mostly handled at the federal level. States are more likely to strike deals with foreign companies than foreign governments. OTOH the federal government is not equivalent to a distinct country and is made up of representatives from the states.
One thing I don't like about the US system is that all our representatives spend a huge amount of time in Washington D.C., away from the people they "represent". And then the lobbyists have a single destination to convince a lot of people to support their stuff. It might be better if they all stayed in their home states and handled congressing electronically on zoom or something.
This word was new to me, but looking it up I wanted to say "Yes" but have since changed to "no". Definition:
Suzerainty (American accent: soo-zer-en-tee) happens when a country X has its own government but cannot act independently because of a more powerful country Y. This more powerful country Y is called the suzerain and can usually control the foreign relations of X (how X interacts with other countries).
When it comes to foreign policy in the US, it is mostly handled at the federal level. States are more likely to strike deals with foreign companies than foreign governments. OTOH the federal government is not equivalent to a distinct country and is made up of representatives from the states.
One thing I don't like about the US system is that all our representatives spend a huge amount of time in Washington D.C., away from the people they "represent". And then the lobbyists have a single destination to convince a lot of people to support their stuff. It might be better if they all stayed in their home states and handled congressing electronically on zoom or something.
> It might be better if they all stayed in their home states and handled congressing electronically on zoom or something.
Lobbyists can easily create big zoom meetings that still get everyone virtually in one spot.
Lobbyists can easily create big zoom meetings that still get everyone virtually in one spot.
[deleted]
So Canada and Mexico?
In Portuguese there is the word "suzerano". It instantly sounded similar to me.
[deleted]
Given inflation, it's probably a thousand dollar word now.
Play more Civ 6! ;)
I would have done the same had I not played Civ 6.
[deleted]
It comes from Civilization V, where you could become the suzerain of city states.
;)
;)
Let's not lose sight of the points being made.
Another word is “stratocracy” which defines Russia, as Putin is ex-KGB.
I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the borders, Russia will be playing whack-a-mole against insurgency forever no matter how much force they use.
Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw.
It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.
Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw.
It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.
> It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.
It can only be because they think that it's essential to strike now; they think that if they leave it, terminal decline is inevitable.
This is a military operation that's been planned for years; by 'now', I mean 'this decade'. I imagine they saw the European gas crisis as an opportunity, and one that would slip away quickly if they didn't seize it. That's why it's happened this spring.
That long column: that's mostly logistics for the planned long siege of Kiev. I think those guys have barely begun.
It can only be because they think that it's essential to strike now; they think that if they leave it, terminal decline is inevitable.
This is a military operation that's been planned for years; by 'now', I mean 'this decade'. I imagine they saw the European gas crisis as an opportunity, and one that would slip away quickly if they didn't seize it. That's why it's happened this spring.
That long column: that's mostly logistics for the planned long siege of Kiev. I think those guys have barely begun.
Hmm, I think another reason for this to happen now, is that the border between Belorussia and the Ukraine is covered by the Pripet Marches, that are neary impassible by heavy equipment when not frozen. Without access that way, Russia would have to fight their way from the east, and forced to cross the Dneipr river, which forms a very significant obstacle. This could delay an invasion by a month or more.
Yes; there seems to be a Russian column abandoned near the Belarus border, due to getting bogged down in mud, i.e. it's not actually frozen (a couple of days ago it was reported that Kiev was warmer than Manchester, England).
Yo be fair, those insurgencies did kind of have access to safe zones (Pakistan is next to Afghanistan) and a good supply of weapons which definitely helped them.
It was, however, nothing close to the levels of support Ukraine is getting. And those insurgencies faced a vastly superior US armed forces.
Those American forces also had vastly longer supply lines to sustain. What the Russians lack in financing and capability, the make up a lot with proximate borders, time zones, etc.
There are plenty of sayings along the lines of "America doesn't have military, they have a logistics corporation" Supplying enough "X" is rarely an issue for the USM except in the cases where it is something new they didn't realize they needed.
The US has established bases all over the globe and has basically created a worldwide supply chain for its military, so that isn’t really a factor. (Please note, this isn’t being said in an anti-American way.)
Russian military morale is so low it's almost a non-force. You see them unloading into chicken farms and monuments rather than fighting. They are running out of fuel all over the place - probably because they sold it. The corruption in the Russian military is vast and intense.
It’s interesting because the U.S. has an order of magnitude more military funding and was trying to secure a supply line an order of magnitude longer. I wonder if this ratio makes it approximately as difficult?
American supply lines were vastly superior to what Russia’s doing with its clown convoy however
[deleted]
An additional worry is that these things never end well. I have to dig up this book on the downstream costs to all these countries that were allied w/ the west or USSR during the cold war...they all pay the price economically, socially etc for being part of the global great game. Central America, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa all took a huge hit, if you think about it.
Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything....
Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything....
> Say Ukraine survives or becomes an Afghanistan-like insurgency power. But now they are rife with guns, warlords, and no national institution or government to organize everything....
Nature abhors vacuums. Especially if those vacuums are easy to fill.
What do you think will happen if Russia backs down?
Ukraine already borders 4 EU members (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).
Nature abhors vacuums. Especially if those vacuums are easy to fill.
What do you think will happen if Russia backs down?
Ukraine already borders 4 EU members (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).
> It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.
At least destabilizing Ukraine is necessary to prevent near-term, rapid decline for the Russian Federation. Ukraine's energy production potential and proximity to Europe make them a likely serious competitor, at a time when renewables are already putting pressure on petrostates like Russia.
Russia made Ukrainian resources in the East difficult to exploit with their fomenting or fabricating a persistent rebellion out that way, and seized most of Ukraine's substantial resources in the Black Sea when they took Crimea outright—but Crimea's dependent on Ukrainian fresh water, which has quite literally dried up for obvious reasons, and Russia's having a hell of a time (that is, spending huge amounts of money to limited effect) supporting Crimea without holding some of the mainland.
This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation. I would guess that an acceptable, if not perfect, outcome for them would be bringing the Eastern ~1/3 to 1/2 of Ukraine under Russian control, and it looks like they may yet manage to play their hand to effect such a partition, despite their bizarrely-inept invasion.
It does appear that they've blundered, overall, and not just though military fuck-ups—the sanctions are likely causing a ton of pain, NATO and the EU are more united against them than they've been in a long time and are re-arming (as in Germany), and they managed to bump energy independence way up the priority list for the EU. However, there are good reasons for them to (have tried to) do what they're doing.
At least destabilizing Ukraine is necessary to prevent near-term, rapid decline for the Russian Federation. Ukraine's energy production potential and proximity to Europe make them a likely serious competitor, at a time when renewables are already putting pressure on petrostates like Russia.
Russia made Ukrainian resources in the East difficult to exploit with their fomenting or fabricating a persistent rebellion out that way, and seized most of Ukraine's substantial resources in the Black Sea when they took Crimea outright—but Crimea's dependent on Ukrainian fresh water, which has quite literally dried up for obvious reasons, and Russia's having a hell of a time (that is, spending huge amounts of money to limited effect) supporting Crimea without holding some of the mainland.
This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation. I would guess that an acceptable, if not perfect, outcome for them would be bringing the Eastern ~1/3 to 1/2 of Ukraine under Russian control, and it looks like they may yet manage to play their hand to effect such a partition, despite their bizarrely-inept invasion.
It does appear that they've blundered, overall, and not just though military fuck-ups—the sanctions are likely causing a ton of pain, NATO and the EU are more united against them than they've been in a long time and are re-arming (as in Germany), and they managed to bump energy independence way up the priority list for the EU. However, there are good reasons for them to (have tried to) do what they're doing.
> This is part of a series of actions aimed at creating short- and mid-term economic stability for Russia, while also improving their strategic situation
I don't know if you're fully aware of what effect the sanctions are having or going to have on Russia, but anything resembling economic stability is absolutely NOT it.
Russia will face a humanitarian crisis, perhaps almost as severe as Ukraine itself, especially in its poorer regions, with anything resembling a tech industry evaporating nearly overnight, and massive unemployment following.
These effects will not dissipate in the short or mid-term.
At least I don't see them being resolved unless they massively pivot to selling petro-chemicals to China instead.
I don't know if you're fully aware of what effect the sanctions are having or going to have on Russia, but anything resembling economic stability is absolutely NOT it.
Russia will face a humanitarian crisis, perhaps almost as severe as Ukraine itself, especially in its poorer regions, with anything resembling a tech industry evaporating nearly overnight, and massive unemployment following.
These effects will not dissipate in the short or mid-term.
At least I don't see them being resolved unless they massively pivot to selling petro-chemicals to China instead.
I suppose this was a huge miscalculation. As far as I can see, the effect will be as follows:
- EU countries are re-arming (Germany in particular). If they go through with that, they will be able to surpass Russia in terms of conventional force strength in a few years, even without US support.
- The EU will remove their dependency on Russian oil&gas, removing Russian leverage and profits at the same time.
- Even if Russia is able to gain military control of the Ukrain, it will take decades of suppression for them to derive any net economic benefit. And by doing this, they will continously remind the world that they are the "bad guys", ensuring continues isolation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Russia doesn't have a big track military track record in recent years, but there's one thing that they have proven to do really well: leveling a city to the ground while slaughtering the civilians who didn't flee.
Having the Ukrainian legitimate government agree to surrender to save Kiev (or “just” Khariv) from such a fate isn't completely impossible to imagine. And giving infantry weapons isn't going to be enough to stop Putin from doing so if he wanted. I don't know how many FОАВ[1] the Russian air force has at its disposal, but Javelin aren't gonna help against that…
And after this hypothetical surrender from the Ukrainian government, setting up a bloody dictatorship with a special police arresting, torturing and executing whoever is suspected to belong to the insurgency, relying on pro-russian locals to provide intelligence is not an impossible feat unfortunately…
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
Having the Ukrainian legitimate government agree to surrender to save Kiev (or “just” Khariv) from such a fate isn't completely impossible to imagine. And giving infantry weapons isn't going to be enough to stop Putin from doing so if he wanted. I don't know how many FОАВ[1] the Russian air force has at its disposal, but Javelin aren't gonna help against that…
And after this hypothetical surrender from the Ukrainian government, setting up a bloody dictatorship with a special police arresting, torturing and executing whoever is suspected to belong to the insurgency, relying on pro-russian locals to provide intelligence is not an impossible feat unfortunately…
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
Fallujah and Mosul were pretty bad in terms of city levelling. We just don't like to remember them, or think about depleted uranium dust causing birth defects, or what happened to the refugees, or a million other things.
You can't just compare Fallujah and Grozny. Of course urban warfare is destructive to the city no matter what, but the US and Russian tactics are very different, and so is the destruction. Dropping tons of low precision thermobaric weapons on a city is a Russian thing, unmatched in its destruction. (The is no American equivalent to the TOS-1[1] for instance).
That being said, that doesn't mean I approve US invasion of Irak in any way (because I do not), it just feels you're comparing Pearl Harbor with Stalingrad… (Ok, not literally, because there is a two orders of magnitude difference between Pearl Harbor and Stalingrad, but you get the idea).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
That being said, that doesn't mean I approve US invasion of Irak in any way (because I do not), it just feels you're comparing Pearl Harbor with Stalingrad… (Ok, not literally, because there is a two orders of magnitude difference between Pearl Harbor and Stalingrad, but you get the idea).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
> You can't just compare Fallujah and Grozny.
That's a fair statement. Depleted Uranium is a gift that keeps on giving.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3...
https://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/falluja...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Iraqi_populat...
That's a fair statement. Depleted Uranium is a gift that keeps on giving.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3...
https://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/falluja...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Iraqi_populat...
There not discussion that DU has terrible long term impact, of course it has. The US aren't “good guys” who don't hurt civilians, nobody is arguing that!
Yet, “in terms of city leveling” Fallujah and Grozny are not comparable. That's it.
Yet, “in terms of city leveling” Fallujah and Grozny are not comparable. That's it.
According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80... the Russian army started to destroy Grozny with heavy bombings only after the initial plan, which was to drive the tank columns straight to the presidential palace, badly failed.
Their stated objective in Ukraine is not to take Kyiv, let's hope it's true.
Their stated objective in Ukraine is not to take Kyiv, let's hope it's true.
I was thinking about Syria, not Chechnya, since that's a more recent major conflict with city captures that the Russians have participated in.
That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets. Against insurgents dispersed across the countryside with Javelins the weapon itself is effectively useless while the aircraft delivering it is still vulnerable.
I think the implication is it might be used against civilian population in a city.
> That thing is only really useful against static, or near static high value targets.
Exactly, like the the capital of your country for instance. Noting that I'm not talking about defeating an insurgency with it, just overthrow the legitimate government and put a pro-russian dictatorship in charge. Exterminating the insurgents would then be the job of the local dictator. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but torture, kidnapping, and assassination have proven an effective mean of counter-insurgency… In real life the bad guy sometimes win…
Exactly, like the the capital of your country for instance. Noting that I'm not talking about defeating an insurgency with it, just overthrow the legitimate government and put a pro-russian dictatorship in charge. Exterminating the insurgents would then be the job of the local dictator. Obviously it's not guaranteed, but torture, kidnapping, and assassination have proven an effective mean of counter-insurgency… In real life the bad guy sometimes win…
Im was addressing it's usefulness in the situation suggested. Yes it is useful in other situations, as I pointed out.
The thing is, once they do that, they'll cross another one of those imaginary lines.
And the sanctions Russia is under will be nothing like the ones that will be heaped on top.
Europe is highly sensitive about local conflicts, especially after what happened to Srebrenica. Grozny didn't really count since it was:
a) an internal war
b) at the end of Europe
If Putin flattens a major European city (for Europe any city above ~2m or so is major), the outrage in Europe will be huge. Even bigger than it is now.
And the sanctions Russia is under will be nothing like the ones that will be heaped on top.
Europe is highly sensitive about local conflicts, especially after what happened to Srebrenica. Grozny didn't really count since it was:
a) an internal war
b) at the end of Europe
If Putin flattens a major European city (for Europe any city above ~2m or so is major), the outrage in Europe will be huge. Even bigger than it is now.
> If Putin flattens a major European city, the outrage in Europe will be huge.
Ukraine is not in NATO. And I'm afraid if NATO and EU have to choose between a direct military confrontation of nuclear-capable powers and a genocide of 40-million-and-dwidling Ukrainian population, they'd choose the latter as long as Putin keeps this contained in Ukraine.
Would it turn Russia into Greater North Korea? Absolutely. Would it cause outrage and grave concern? You bet. Would it make NATO to move in and stop it? Unlikely at the moment.
Ukraine is not in NATO. And I'm afraid if NATO and EU have to choose between a direct military confrontation of nuclear-capable powers and a genocide of 40-million-and-dwidling Ukrainian population, they'd choose the latter as long as Putin keeps this contained in Ukraine.
Would it turn Russia into Greater North Korea? Absolutely. Would it cause outrage and grave concern? You bet. Would it make NATO to move in and stop it? Unlikely at the moment.
We have not seen what the Germany Army is capable of since 80 years ago. Does Putin really want to find out what has changed since then?
The German Army isn't capable of much at the moment.
And even if it were, no NATO member will set foot in Ukraine while this war and the following insurgency are happening.
What will happen is, depending on how hard Putin pushes, the reaction will be just as strong. More attacks targeting civilians? More weapons sent to Ukraine. Harder sanctions, with actual teeth. I wouldn't be shocked if by next winter 60%+ of the gas supply for Western Europe will be covered from other vendors, more or less bankrupting Russia (a huge percentage of Russian exports are raw materials, primarily oil and gas).
And even if it were, no NATO member will set foot in Ukraine while this war and the following insurgency are happening.
What will happen is, depending on how hard Putin pushes, the reaction will be just as strong. More attacks targeting civilians? More weapons sent to Ukraine. Harder sanctions, with actual teeth. I wouldn't be shocked if by next winter 60%+ of the gas supply for Western Europe will be covered from other vendors, more or less bankrupting Russia (a huge percentage of Russian exports are raw materials, primarily oil and gas).
> I wouldn't be shocked if by next winter 60%+ of the gas supply for Western Europe will be covered from other vendors, more or less bankrupting Russia
you will be shocked to discover that Russia is going to fuel China's economy instead [1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/gazprom-p...
you will be shocked to discover that Russia is going to fuel China's economy instead [1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/gazprom-p...
Possible, but risky for China to do that. A dollar buying Chinese made goods, is a dollar China has to buy Russian oil products, is a dollar Russia has to pay soldiers and build more weapons to bomb whoever they're bombing. I'm in favor of global free trade, but not without limits. The U.N. Charter is more important. The non-violent multilateral institution of resolving disputes is too important. Anyone outside that arrangement is calling to past demons. And for what? What does China gain by being seen as funding Russia's war effort?
Russia has claimed that the mission is to liberate Ukraine from Nazis, which is why you see videos of unarmed civilians not being immediately run over by trucks.
If the mission changes to kill as many civilians as possible, the army is going to have an even worse morale problem and the international community will come up with a creative solution like giving part of Poland to Ukraine, giving Ukrainian citizenship to anyone within that part of Poland and then launching attacks with all the military resources that just happen to now be in Ukraine.
If the mission changes to kill as many civilians as possible, the army is going to have an even worse morale problem and the international community will come up with a creative solution like giving part of Poland to Ukraine, giving Ukrainian citizenship to anyone within that part of Poland and then launching attacks with all the military resources that just happen to now be in Ukraine.
>why you see videos of unarmed civilians not being immediately run over by trucks.
starting to see videos of explosives being lobbed at unarmed people. These do not seem like crowd-control munitions: https://twitter.com/aldin_ww/status/1499059624250646538
On a more historic note, it took the Soviets a couple of days before they ran over people with tanks during the January Events in Vilnius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)#Tim... note how they also claimed it was acting against a "nationalist" (equivalent to "nazi" in the USSR) government.
starting to see videos of explosives being lobbed at unarmed people. These do not seem like crowd-control munitions: https://twitter.com/aldin_ww/status/1499059624250646538
On a more historic note, it took the Soviets a couple of days before they ran over people with tanks during the January Events in Vilnius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)#Tim... note how they also claimed it was acting against a "nationalist" (equivalent to "nazi" in the USSR) government.
Just sign a paper that Poland rocket is now Ukrainian rocket and then shoot it over border. Ukraine will not protest if a Ukrainian rocket will hit an enemy target on territory of Ukraine. Nobody can easily check who operates a rocket or drone.
> Russia has claimed that the mission is to liberate Ukraine from Nazis, which is why you see videos of unarmed civilians not being immediately run over by trucks.
> If the mission changes to kill as many civilians as possible, the army is going to have an even worse morale problem
I agree. This is indeed one of the biggest challenge the Russian army will face if they decide to do so.
> the international community will come up with a creative solution like giving part of Poland to Ukraine, giving Ukrainian citizenship to anyone within that part of Poland and then launching attacks with all the military resources that just happen to now be in Ukraine.
This is hilarious, I love it. Never gonna happen, but I love the creativity here. This is “thinking out of the box”.
> If the mission changes to kill as many civilians as possible, the army is going to have an even worse morale problem
I agree. This is indeed one of the biggest challenge the Russian army will face if they decide to do so.
> the international community will come up with a creative solution like giving part of Poland to Ukraine, giving Ukrainian citizenship to anyone within that part of Poland and then launching attacks with all the military resources that just happen to now be in Ukraine.
This is hilarious, I love it. Never gonna happen, but I love the creativity here. This is “thinking out of the box”.
The more realistic "creative use of borders" I anticipate is citing historic claims of (mostly) Poland to carve off a big chunk of Ukraine in the West into a new state, and put it under explicit or implied ("just try and see what happens") NATO protection. I don't expect that unless Russia starts having a lot more success, though, and both they and Ukraine start to signal that they might accept a partition of the country to end hostilities.
[EDIT] Further caveat that it'd have to be before substantial Russian ground forces reach that part of the country. This is still a low-likelihood scenario, but certainly far more likely than declaring part of Poland to be in Ukraine (?!)
[EDIT] Further caveat that it'd have to be before substantial Russian ground forces reach that part of the country. This is still a low-likelihood scenario, but certainly far more likely than declaring part of Poland to be in Ukraine (?!)
> I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences.
That doesn't explain this, though:
> Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts.
> After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses.
> That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."
> Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace.
...
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time.
Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.
That doesn't explain this, though:
> Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts.
> After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses.
> That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."
> Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace.
...
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time.
Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.
I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of.
> I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of.
It's unclear to me how much of that time Ukraine used to prepare. If they did, they didn't telegraph it.
What I read was the Russian amphibious landing in the south was done 30-40 miles away from the target city (or kilometers, can't remember the unit). Apparently they wanted the space to get organized. However that meant the city had extra time to prepare after the actual invasion started.
It's unclear to me how much of that time Ukraine used to prepare. If they did, they didn't telegraph it.
What I read was the Russian amphibious landing in the south was done 30-40 miles away from the target city (or kilometers, can't remember the unit). Apparently they wanted the space to get organized. However that meant the city had extra time to prepare after the actual invasion started.
They were arming themselves with missiles and the Turkish drones during that time.
Perhaps Russia knowing it's military strategy would be on full display for analysis decided to accept loss of men and/or slower gains for not giving away how its planes would perform?
This is my theory (disclaimer: I have no clue what I’m talking about). They don’t want to show all their cards to the West.
I thought like you but day by day I am more convinced that their cards are visible and insufficient to secure a victory anyway.
Everything from land forces, to the navy, to the air force, to the intelligence, to the propaganda unit is performing poorly.
And the West has exhibited superior intelligence and PR by all means. The Ukrainian army is much better trained and organized than expected (probably some Western help in their training, or just the psychological hardening caused by the conflict from 2014), and the population is 100% hostile to the invasion.
Everything from land forces, to the navy, to the air force, to the intelligence, to the propaganda unit is performing poorly.
And the West has exhibited superior intelligence and PR by all means. The Ukrainian army is much better trained and organized than expected (probably some Western help in their training, or just the psychological hardening caused by the conflict from 2014), and the population is 100% hostile to the invasion.
bombing cities in the twitter era creates an undelible trail of images of dead civilian infants that make you lose the war. russia simply decided to give Ukraine gov. the exclusivity of bombing civilians. Photos are already out there despite the massive international PR/PSYOP campain. Search for dombass
Not true of Syria.
you're right. They did not lose the war because they were facing a lousy enemy
I mean all I see when I look online is Russia attacking Civilians and not caring who they attack.
Yes there is a degree of restraint because they are trying to take the country over, they cannot burn it to the ground, but they don’t really seem to care about civilians and keep committing war crimes, just now they directly bombed near a hotel and train station, people trying to flee the country.
Saying they are ‘pro-civillian’ seems far fetched and doesn’t seem to match the facts
The British government is leading a 38-nation referral of Russia to the ICC to probe war crimes and a direct quote from the British Government foreign secretary just now reads: “Putin’s military machine is targeting civilians indiscriminately and tearing through towns across Ukraine"
Yes there is a degree of restraint because they are trying to take the country over, they cannot burn it to the ground, but they don’t really seem to care about civilians and keep committing war crimes, just now they directly bombed near a hotel and train station, people trying to flee the country.
Saying they are ‘pro-civillian’ seems far fetched and doesn’t seem to match the facts
The British government is leading a 38-nation referral of Russia to the ICC to probe war crimes and a direct quote from the British Government foreign secretary just now reads: “Putin’s military machine is targeting civilians indiscriminately and tearing through towns across Ukraine"
> just now they directly bombed near a hotel and train station, people trying to flee the country.
I've just read that the explosion near Kiev's train station (if that's what you're talking about) was due to a Russian missile that got intercepted by Ukrainian defense.
It would make zero sense for Russians to be using their weapons against anything non-military at this point given that, if reports are true, there's still plenty of Ukrainian military resistance to be dealt with.
I've just read that the explosion near Kiev's train station (if that's what you're talking about) was due to a Russian missile that got intercepted by Ukrainian defense.
It would make zero sense for Russians to be using their weapons against anything non-military at this point given that, if reports are true, there's still plenty of Ukrainian military resistance to be dealt with.
I'll just drop these 2 of dozens of examples here:
https://youtu.be/8ekA9skT7QQ
https://youtu.be/YMMxwA4lvbA
https://youtu.be/8ekA9skT7QQ
https://youtu.be/YMMxwA4lvbA
We have footage of cluster bombs striking civilian apartment buildings in Kharkiv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw
That footage is not of a cluster bomb. Cluster bombs consist of many small bombs that spread over a large area and don't all detonate at once but instead detonate over longer period of time in order to maximize casualties and make area difficult to access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition.
NATO used cluster bombs in the 1990s bombing of Serbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing. If it is a war crime now, it was a war crime then, where are the prosecutions of those responsible? It has been 20 years and I don't see anyone being held accountable.
I think we are now seeing a clearer picture of what happens when there is a conflict in an urban area. In the past we got to see a video from a plane guiding a bomb to the building from above (Iraq wars) and assumed it was an isolated military installation. Then we saw news footage of residential buildings in various states of destruction and just never associated that with the above video of bombs dropping on buildings. If you drop bombs near residential area, there will be destruction in that residential area. Look at what truck bomb did in Oklahoma City bombing - that was one makeshift (but large) bomb that detonated outside a building and according to Wikipedia "The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars".
Maybe this war will finally get people to see how destructive and wasteful they are but somehow I doubt it.
NATO used cluster bombs in the 1990s bombing of Serbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing. If it is a war crime now, it was a war crime then, where are the prosecutions of those responsible? It has been 20 years and I don't see anyone being held accountable.
I think we are now seeing a clearer picture of what happens when there is a conflict in an urban area. In the past we got to see a video from a plane guiding a bomb to the building from above (Iraq wars) and assumed it was an isolated military installation. Then we saw news footage of residential buildings in various states of destruction and just never associated that with the above video of bombs dropping on buildings. If you drop bombs near residential area, there will be destruction in that residential area. Look at what truck bomb did in Oklahoma City bombing - that was one makeshift (but large) bomb that detonated outside a building and according to Wikipedia "The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars".
Maybe this war will finally get people to see how destructive and wasteful they are but somehow I doubt it.
> I think we are now seeing a clearer picture of what happens when there is a conflict in an urban area
Now? Have you heard of Stalingrad?
Now? Have you heard of Stalingrad?
The problem with history lessons is that pictures are b&w and static so it seems like it was all over long time ago and now we are OK.
The problem with Iraq and Syria is that they are over there where wars always happen so it's nothing unexpected to westerners (whose governments probably had a role in starting those wars).
Even Yugoslavia was 30 years ago and back on Balkans so who cares (I am from there and I do care).
With Ukraine at least some Europeans are now getting an idea how bad war is but I suspect a lot are still ignorant and cheer for fighting to continue until "victory".
THERE IS NO VICTORY FOR REGULAR PEOPLE IN THESE CONFLICTS. THEY LOST EVERYTHING.
It seems to be impossible to explain to most people that war is bad for them and the only people who "win" are the politicians and their rich sponsors. I will count myself lucky if I manage to die before we get into a nuclear war.
THERE IS NO VICTORY FOR REGULAR PEOPLE IN THESE CONFLICTS. THEY LOST EVERYTHING.
It seems to be impossible to explain to most people that war is bad for them and the only people who "win" are the politicians and their rich sponsors. I will count myself lucky if I manage to die before we get into a nuclear war.
I don't speak for GP but I think they mean "clearer picture" as in: literally live-streaming the frontline, in HD, worldwide.
> I think they mean "clearer picture" as in: literally live-streaming the frontline, in HD, worldwide.
We have to understand this before we can cope with what is happening? Asking a bit much, in my opinion.
And have you perhaps heard: Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
We have to understand this before we can cope with what is happening? Asking a bit much, in my opinion.
And have you perhaps heard: Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
It is important to distinguish between strategic and tactical decisions.
Russia has made a strategic decision to avoid heavy bombers due to the high likelihood of civilian casualties.
Some platoon commander launched a rocket barrage for whatever reason. Command discipline isn’t perfect, especially among new recruits, so individual deviations are to be expected.
Russia has made a strategic decision to avoid heavy bombers due to the high likelihood of civilian casualties.
Some platoon commander launched a rocket barrage for whatever reason. Command discipline isn’t perfect, especially among new recruits, so individual deviations are to be expected.
Don't forget, every media outlet that isn't Russian is going to show those incidents to the world to make that bad guys look bad. We're also not likely to see any wins against Ukrainian military targets for both political and practical reasons. So it's very hard to tell from these reports what the overall picture really is.
Why I can see losses of Ukrainian army, while you cannot? They are not hidden by Ukrainians, because it's impossible to hide them in time of TikTok and FB. They are recorded and posted by civilians to YT, FB, TikTok and reported by Ministry of Defense. If MoD lie in FB, then users will correct them in real time.
>> Why I can see losses of Ukrainian army, while you cannot?
Because we look in different places. TikTok and FB posts are isolated incidents and don't offer meaningful statistics. I'm sure if I want to see dead Ukrainians I can find that on Russian media sites. None of it is meaningful to the big picture. We really can't see the big picture numbers.
Because we look in different places. TikTok and FB posts are isolated incidents and don't offer meaningful statistics. I'm sure if I want to see dead Ukrainians I can find that on Russian media sites. None of it is meaningful to the big picture. We really can't see the big picture numbers.
[deleted]
There are counter claims that that building was being used for recruitment for the Azov battalion.
That’s what they said about a different building that got bombed in Kharkiv, a University Economics building, that the intended target was “Azov Battalion” across the street. They can’t seriously be bombing many different buildings and claiming they’re all “Azov Battalion.” Azov mainly operated around Mariupol too, not Kharkiv.
The Azov Battalion is the cause of everything, it seems. They're recruiting everywhere, I'm surprised it itself isn't the whole of the Ukrainian defenses now, if I believed all of the Russian shills.
/s/Azov Battalion/Ukrainian National Guard/
/s/Azov Battalion/Ukrainian National Guard/
Yeah, they have around 2500 members, but that's totally a reason to lose 2000 people a day in an unprovoked invasion and tank your entire country's economy while doing it.
Would be nice if Europe and the US would seize Putin and associates' accounts and donate them to Ukraine.
Would be nice if Europe and the US would seize Putin and associates' accounts and donate them to Ukraine.
It's basically akin to Canada deciding to invade the US because of the existence of the Proud Boys.
Well, it's a little different. For one, Ukraine took all of these militia groups and made them a standard part of their military's operations. Apparently they've been working to defang the rhetoric of this particular group, but for Putin to pretend like he gives a shit about fascism given that he's currently the highest profile fascist world leader is a bit ridiculous.
> Would be nice if Europe and the US would seize Putin and associates' accounts and donate them to Ukraine.
I agree with this. Ukraine already has sustained tremendous damage, and of course it will get much worse before this ends. Take everything possible from Russia and give it over to Ukraine to help rebuild. Assuming they win. God I hope they win.
I agree with this. Ukraine already has sustained tremendous damage, and of course it will get much worse before this ends. Take everything possible from Russia and give it over to Ukraine to help rebuild. Assuming they win. God I hope they win.
$600B of reserves of RF, which are frozen, is the cost of a just single major city. It's not enough to cover loses from Russian war, because Ukraine lost 2 major cities (Donetsk, Luhansk) and whole Crimea at the beginning of the war. Everything confiscated will be just a little fraction of lost value.
IMHO, RF should give Cuban and other territories, confiscated by USSR, back to Ukraine as compensation for 8 years of war and massive destruction of Ukrainian cities.
IMHO, RF should give Cuban and other territories, confiscated by USSR, back to Ukraine as compensation for 8 years of war and massive destruction of Ukrainian cities.
like seriously, lol.
their intelligence were crappy enough to miss a bunch of air defense systems but they know that in some specific building is an recruitment for azov
The specific building is the regional administration, and recruitment there was advertised in Ukrainian telegram channels.
All that excuses nothing.
All that excuses nothing.
there is recruitment to regional defense everywhere right now.
This might be why they are starting to bomb everywhere now.
now. residential area in kharkiv
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM33LeNXwAsuKHy?format=jpg&name=...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly
This is my take as well.
The obvious contrast is their handling of Kiev versus how they utterly flattened Grozny.
It's clear to me that in the early days Russia was hoping for a quick and decisive win. They'd decapitate the government, install a puppet regime, and then hope the public would roll over.
That hasn't happened and we're now entering a much more bloody phase of indiscriminate bombing/shelling of the civilian population.
This is my take as well.
The obvious contrast is their handling of Kiev versus how they utterly flattened Grozny.
It's clear to me that in the early days Russia was hoping for a quick and decisive win. They'd decapitate the government, install a puppet regime, and then hope the public would roll over.
That hasn't happened and we're now entering a much more bloody phase of indiscriminate bombing/shelling of the civilian population.
> ... Grozny...
The Russian Army didn't initially flatten Grozny with artillery either. It was only after a failed assault that they switched to methodical urban destruction.
Which is why racheting up sanctions and worse ASAP is important...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80...
The Russian Army didn't initially flatten Grozny with artillery either. It was only after a failed assault that they switched to methodical urban destruction.
Which is why racheting up sanctions and worse ASAP is important...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80...
Actually real attack on Kiev have not started yet. Ukrainians probably deliberately let Russian army to get close to the Kiev and than destroyed all supply convoys for Russian vehicles.
I have this info from one of the journalist who were close to Belarus border in the beginning of the invasion. First he wrote article about how hopeless situation is because he rode a few hours to Kiev before seeing first defense. But after two days all the attacks on Kiev stopped so it probably was smart strategy to make supply lines too long to defend them. Even on Monday he reported that only shelling he saw was from Ukrainian army.
I have this info from one of the journalist who were close to Belarus border in the beginning of the invasion. First he wrote article about how hopeless situation is because he rode a few hours to Kiev before seeing first defense. But after two days all the attacks on Kiev stopped so it probably was smart strategy to make supply lines too long to defend them. Even on Monday he reported that only shelling he saw was from Ukrainian army.
>Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
Iirc Ukraine had a government that was subordinate to Russia as recently as 2014. Belarus is still a Russian puppet. The Transnistria region of Moldova to Ukraine's south is largely welcoming of Russian military control.
Doesn't seem too outlandish for them to assume that to me.
Iirc Ukraine had a government that was subordinate to Russia as recently as 2014. Belarus is still a Russian puppet. The Transnistria region of Moldova to Ukraine's south is largely welcoming of Russian military control.
Doesn't seem too outlandish for them to assume that to me.
That would be an epic failure of Russian intelligence. Alternative take: they knew but didn't dare to tell Putin. Don't underestimate the isolation of strongmen.
That government in 2014 was violently overthrown by a popular rebellion. Unlikely they'd be greeting Russians as liberators after that.
maybe they were avoiding in few first days, but gloves are off now because they are failing to advance. planes are bombing cities in residential areas (i have relatives in kharkiv). heavy artillery, etc. there is footage that looks like footage from WWII, of residential neighborhoods of apartment complexes in rubble and half collapsed buildings on fire.
This is destroying Putin's legitimacy in Russia too
nothing of it reported. use google translate to browse ria ru
Can't access it even with Google translate from Europe. What a sad day for the so-called free world.
Edit: works with Yandex translate
Edit: works with Yandex translate
> the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing
This doesn't explain Russia's lack of air superiority as well as the hypothesis proposed by the paper on which this article is based [1]: a lack of precision munitions, the risk of Ground Force SAMs causing friendly fire due to bad coordination between the branches and a lack of pilot training leading to those planes not being battle ready.
[1] https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar...
This doesn't explain Russia's lack of air superiority as well as the hypothesis proposed by the paper on which this article is based [1]: a lack of precision munitions, the risk of Ground Force SAMs causing friendly fire due to bad coordination between the branches and a lack of pilot training leading to those planes not being battle ready.
[1] https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar...
> Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry.
maybe the plan is: d) cut ukraine in half, let a weaker and beaten 'neutral' western Ukraine be the new NATO buffer, and eastern Ukraine is annexed?
maybe the plan is: d) cut ukraine in half, let a weaker and beaten 'neutral' western Ukraine be the new NATO buffer, and eastern Ukraine is annexed?
I'm not sure that explains it. The article asks why the Russian air force wasn't used to destroy Ukrainian _military_ targets. If bombing an air base causes substantial civilian casualties, then it's because that country brought in civilians to the site to use a meat shield.
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly.
That doesn't apply to apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. The shelling is very intense in multiple cities.
So yes, most Russians aren't directly firing on people in the street, but in larger cities they're destroying their homes and local infrastructure.
That doesn't apply to apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. The shelling is very intense in multiple cities.
So yes, most Russians aren't directly firing on people in the street, but in larger cities they're destroying their homes and local infrastructure.
So the school bombings are easily justified. I saw two separate pictures on Reddit yesterday where Ukrainian soldiers are prepping in a school gym (think it was a basketball court). Like selfie shots from a Ukrainian soldier.
Look Im pro Ukraine. Out of interest I joined a bunch of Telegram groups that are “pro Russian” to see how both sides see the conflict. There is a lot of information you’re missing out on if you just look at mainstream news. Like the school thing. Maybe I’m being redpilled. It was a weird eye opening experience for me.
Edit: here it is https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrain...
There’s also another video of a school attack aftermath. Dead Ukrainian solders in the school. Looks like it was close quarter combat.
Look Im pro Ukraine. Out of interest I joined a bunch of Telegram groups that are “pro Russian” to see how both sides see the conflict. There is a lot of information you’re missing out on if you just look at mainstream news. Like the school thing. Maybe I’m being redpilled. It was a weird eye opening experience for me.
Edit: here it is https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrain...
There’s also another video of a school attack aftermath. Dead Ukrainian solders in the school. Looks like it was close quarter combat.
In all fairness, "invade assuming the people will chant you to power" sounds a lot like GWB statregy back in 2003... We made lots of jokes back then.
I still can't see how (b) doesn't still lead to (c). He needs to control the security apparatus, and that means essentially being an occupying force. It's not like the Ukrainians have not already have their security trampled all over already, so the usual limits on a popular uprising are gone already.
You have no idea about the darkness and effectiveness of modern tyranny.
Russia is pretty much North Korea in democracy at this point or they will become so very soon.
Putin wants the sanctions to be over. His next move will be to create devastation in Ukraine and hold civilians as hostages for the lifting of the sanctions.
In anycase, Russia will controll South of Ukraine, link up with Transnistria and even if they don't take Kyiev and don't force Kyiev into peace negociations, the will secure such a strong position that absolute control won't matter
Putin wants the sanctions to be over. His next move will be to create devastation in Ukraine and hold civilians as hostages for the lifting of the sanctions.
In anycase, Russia will controll South of Ukraine, link up with Transnistria and even if they don't take Kyiev and don't force Kyiev into peace negociations, the will secure such a strong position that absolute control won't matter
If Russia manages to occupy Ukraine through repressions then wouldn't this invite Chechnya 2.0, but with 30x the people? Can the Russian state even survive something like that?
Yes it would, but those able to would eventually leave the country and those peope left will tire out, run out of money and will.
I don't know what Putin thinks at this stage, I think he desperately needs a win to restore some credibility back home.
I'd say he's going to invade Moldova in the next few days (once Odessa is taken) and make a big show of how easily they took it to restore morale, and very soon after they're going to plunge in Ukraine's back and make a big push for Kyiev.
I think they might abandon installing a puppet government, but in that case they will bring devastation to Ukraine and keep the whole Black Sea coast, and just let Ucraine fester.
I'd say he's going to invade Moldova in the next few days (once Odessa is taken) and make a big show of how easily they took it to restore morale, and very soon after they're going to plunge in Ukraine's back and make a big push for Kyiev.
I think they might abandon installing a puppet government, but in that case they will bring devastation to Ukraine and keep the whole Black Sea coast, and just let Ucraine fester.
Let's face it, Russian airforce, russian army and russian equipment suck, but are good enough in this situation.
The Emperor Putler has no clothes.
The Emperor Putler has no clothes.
I've seen reports that Russia's only deployed 5-10% of their forces. This might be a slow steady escalation to allow evacuations of civilians and test the endurance of battalion forces.
Any victories for Ukrainian forces may be short lived, as Russia seems to be using this opportunity to guage hot and cold zones.
Any victories for Ukrainian forces may be short lived, as Russia seems to be using this opportunity to guage hot and cold zones.
Having (from a US civilian POV) sought to comprehend Soviet (and now Russian) military capability from afar since the early 1980's, it has long been my perception that (due to the political system in place there and the resultant poor economy) only 5-10% of Russian/Soviet military units nominally in existence have sufficient morale, training, and full provisioning with modern equipment to engage in successful offensive operations. In other words, that 5-10% of their units are lavished with the best people, training and weapons, and the remaining units make do with sub-par everything (at best).
Is the above an inaccurate perception?
Is the above an inaccurate perception?
But their doctrine isn't to start with the with the well trained and equipped 5-10%, but instead a bunch of conscripts that that soak up some material, and then send in the competent soldiers.
Surely they started with the fake special forces then, just as a prank for Ukraine?
Surely the ukrainians just killed the general of those decoy/fake spetsnaz?
Surely they asked for cechen, mercenary, bielorusian and even Kazhatanian troops just to join the 85% of non commited troops, because it makes perfect sense to bring troops from thousands and thousands of km instead of using your non-commited troops that you have already staged.
They did not commit all, and russia doctrine is recon by fire and they don't give a fuck about their conscripts lives, but what you see is what Russia got.
They didn't switch to demolish cities because they are evil.
They ran out of precision munitions and the ukrainian had their asses handed to them so they switched to siege warfare.
You are seeing the true face of the russian army, subpar by all standards, but enough for the butcher in Kremlin.
Surely they asked for cechen, mercenary, bielorusian and even Kazhatanian troops just to join the 85% of non commited troops, because it makes perfect sense to bring troops from thousands and thousands of km instead of using your non-commited troops that you have already staged.
They did not commit all, and russia doctrine is recon by fire and they don't give a fuck about their conscripts lives, but what you see is what Russia got.
They didn't switch to demolish cities because they are evil.
They ran out of precision munitions and the ukrainian had their asses handed to them so they switched to siege warfare.
You are seeing the true face of the russian army, subpar by all standards, but enough for the butcher in Kremlin.
~80% of assembled combat force, from the sources I've read [0]
[0] http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaig...
[0] http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaig...
82% of all staged forces as of this morning according the US DOD.
Unfortunately, the massive propaganda campaign may extend into the DOD's public narrative. It did with the Iraq and Syrian wars.
Yeah, the DOD lies, like they lied about Russia invading Ukraine.
How could glorious Russia commit more than 0.5% of their forces if they haven't won yet?
>Yeah, the DOD lies, like they lied about Russia invading Ukraine.
We can't ignore the 50+ years of lies about various conflicts around the world and the coups/ assassinations where the public was purposely misled. This isn't new and ridiculing the observation is unproductive. Ignore history at your own peril.
I will say, Russia has probably increased their forces at this point but it may not be as much as claimed by the DOD.
We can't ignore the 50+ years of lies about various conflicts around the world and the coups/ assassinations where the public was purposely misled. This isn't new and ridiculing the observation is unproductive. Ignore history at your own peril.
I will say, Russia has probably increased their forces at this point but it may not be as much as claimed by the DOD.
And for what reason would Russia commit so few troops?
Other than explaining away russian embarrasment of the way things are going.
Other than explaining away russian embarrasment of the way things are going.
Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum seems to be the objective. I expect things will escalate rapidly until Eastern Ukraine is under Russian control but only after most civilians are evacuated.
Considering that there are millions of Russians there and 10-15 millions of Russian-Ukrainians, yes. South and East will not only accept but accept it gladly. West and center is a different story but then the area was always controlled by outside power - western provinces by Austria and Poland, Kiev and its surrounds - by Russian Empire. Give it 10-15 years and absence of rabid nationalistic media and things will change.
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
I don't think it's that simple.
Sure, conscripts were told to expect a welcome in streets lined with natives waving Russian flags. Maybe some in high command even thought that was a possibility. But they have backup plans; we've seen only the first click of the ratchet. Escalate, pause; escalate, pause. This happened in Chechnya too.
Putin didn't invent this approach. And Putin didn't invent the idea that Ukraine is not a separate state, but a part of Russia.
He's written history books, I gather; I might be interested in reading one, but I suspect they're hard to get hold of just now.
I don't think it's that simple.
Sure, conscripts were told to expect a welcome in streets lined with natives waving Russian flags. Maybe some in high command even thought that was a possibility. But they have backup plans; we've seen only the first click of the ratchet. Escalate, pause; escalate, pause. This happened in Chechnya too.
Putin didn't invent this approach. And Putin didn't invent the idea that Ukraine is not a separate state, but a part of Russia.
He's written history books, I gather; I might be interested in reading one, but I suspect they're hard to get hold of just now.
Ukraine IS Russia. Russian Federation doesn't contain a region named «Russia».
Russia formed when Oleg from Novgorod killed Ascold and Dir (rulers of Kyїv) in 852AD, captured Kyїv, then called it as «mother of (new) Russian cities».
When Moscow tsar Petro I captured original Russia (now Ukraine), he appended «tsar of all Russia» to his tittle. Then Catherine II renamed Moscow kingdom to Russian Empire.
So, in short, RF is Russian, not Russia.
Russia formed when Oleg from Novgorod killed Ascold and Dir (rulers of Kyїv) in 852AD, captured Kyїv, then called it as «mother of (new) Russian cities».
When Moscow tsar Petro I captured original Russia (now Ukraine), he appended «tsar of all Russia» to his tittle. Then Catherine II renamed Moscow kingdom to Russian Empire.
So, in short, RF is Russian, not Russia.
[deleted]
After such a long civil war in Ukraine I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know already exactly what to expect from who.
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
> Their options seems to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry.
> We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b).
This is precisely the conclusion I've come to.
I think the only (a) is give him some territory. That seems unlikely. Perhaps retake all of Crimea and then give him part of it?
I'm really worried about (b). I have 3 friends/coworkers there.
> Their options seems to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry.
> We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b).
This is precisely the conclusion I've come to.
I think the only (a) is give him some territory. That seems unlikely. Perhaps retake all of Crimea and then give him part of it?
I'm really worried about (b). I have 3 friends/coworkers there.
>> and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing
they do not. Their policy is not pro-civilian at all. These are facts that you can see on the streets, no fog of war here. They are are bombing residential areas for DAYS without stopping. And I know, my best friends are in Kyiv and Kharkiv how.
Also there was a missile strike on the railway in Kyiv where people are evacuated. Civilian people.
Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level.
they do not. Their policy is not pro-civilian at all. These are facts that you can see on the streets, no fog of war here. They are are bombing residential areas for DAYS without stopping. And I know, my best friends are in Kyiv and Kharkiv how.
Also there was a missile strike on the railway in Kyiv where people are evacuated. Civilian people.
Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level.
"Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level. "
It is, when you compare it with syria or chechnya.
It is, when you compare it with syria or chechnya.
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local resistance.
They're hitting a lot of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. As per their typical operating procedures, c.f. Syria.
They're hitting a lot of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. As per their typical operating procedures, c.f. Syria.
If want to avoid massive casualties among civilians, it is very difficult to hit a Buk sitting between two buildings. One needs to be pretty insane to use air force against targets until Buk systems aren't destroyed.
All your variants are based on the assumption that Russia wants to stay in Ukraine. From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal.
Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically.
People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other countries next are completely delusional. Russia is a small economy and has no chance of winning an open conflict with NATO. You may not like Putin but he's definitely not suicidal.
Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically.
People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other countries next are completely delusional. Russia is a small economy and has no chance of winning an open conflict with NATO. You may not like Putin but he's definitely not suicidal.
It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine. It's a violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter. At worst it could be made neutral territory and put in U.N. peacekeeping troops.
Two world wars were fought over this issue of just rolling tanks into people's backyards and then staking claim to the land. The sole purpose of these agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (and a founding member of the U.N.) is to prevent exactly what they are doing. It's bad enough the response to Russia's 2009 invasion of Georgia and 2014 invasion of Ukraine came with tepid responses - but it's not OK to just roll over and change borders as an exchange for stopping aggressive war. It would be rewarding that behavior.
The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
Two world wars were fought over this issue of just rolling tanks into people's backyards and then staking claim to the land. The sole purpose of these agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (and a founding member of the U.N.) is to prevent exactly what they are doing. It's bad enough the response to Russia's 2009 invasion of Georgia and 2014 invasion of Ukraine came with tepid responses - but it's not OK to just roll over and change borders as an exchange for stopping aggressive war. It would be rewarding that behavior.
The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
> It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine
Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukraine since 8 years, in fact Ukraine bombed and harassed them for years, killing civilians and destroying residential areas, without managing to pull them back. Ukraine is permanently split in 2, like it or not. The west can hide their head under the sand for 8 more years, the situation won't change.
> The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
That's probably what Russia hopes, as the sanctions are going to cause devastating economical damage in Europe. Russia can just turn to China and other Eurasia countries to sell gas and oil, we don't have alternatives. Without Russia's gas, both Germany and Italy will suffer heavy consequences, dragging Europe with them.
We haven't even seen the sanctions Russia will apply on us. We're not going to like it, trust me. And I have NO intention f sacrificing myself because Biden or the european burocrats (who never gave a single fuck about me) ask for it.
I seriously hope this situation will cause a break up between Europe and the USA. It's time for an Eurasia era.
Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukraine since 8 years, in fact Ukraine bombed and harassed them for years, killing civilians and destroying residential areas, without managing to pull them back. Ukraine is permanently split in 2, like it or not. The west can hide their head under the sand for 8 more years, the situation won't change.
> The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
That's probably what Russia hopes, as the sanctions are going to cause devastating economical damage in Europe. Russia can just turn to China and other Eurasia countries to sell gas and oil, we don't have alternatives. Without Russia's gas, both Germany and Italy will suffer heavy consequences, dragging Europe with them.
We haven't even seen the sanctions Russia will apply on us. We're not going to like it, trust me. And I have NO intention f sacrificing myself because Biden or the european burocrats (who never gave a single fuck about me) ask for it.
I seriously hope this situation will cause a break up between Europe and the USA. It's time for an Eurasia era.
> From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal.
He literally went on a 45 minute rant about how Ukraine isn't a country right before this started.
He literally went on a 45 minute rant about how Ukraine isn't a country right before this started.
Just use your logic. Don't trust the media political circus that is being put up by both sides.
This is a war of hatred towards Ukrainians from Putin. Therefore he's both 1) not expecting resistance because enemies are dehumanized and weak according to his worldview, 2) probably ready to start genocide if enemies resist too much, after all, Holodomor happened less than a century ago.
My pet theory is that, in addition to (1), Putin believed his own propaganda and thought that the Ukrainian people (and even parts of the Ukrainian military) would welcome Russia with open arms. This is somewhat backed up by Putin urging the Ukrainian military to perform a coup on the second day of the war[1].
[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-o...
[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-o...
According to reports on French news channels, Zelenskyy is considered a puppet by a large % of the population in eastern Ukraine and they are welcoming a Russian invasion.
Years ago, I was also suprised to hear people in Crimea celebrating post-Russian take over. This topic was never covered (at least I had seen no mention) in American media during the Crimean invasion.
Years ago, I was also suprised to hear people in Crimea celebrating post-Russian take over. This topic was never covered (at least I had seen no mention) in American media during the Crimean invasion.
It was widely reported that Crimea was mostly Russian speaking and many there leaned pro-Russia, especially around the referendum ( in the sense that the results were obviously fake, but there was a kernel of truth).
And yes, many in Eastern Ukraine considered themselves more Russian than Ukrainian. No more: https://on.ft.com/35jWHzB
And yes, many in Eastern Ukraine considered themselves more Russian than Ukrainian. No more: https://on.ft.com/35jWHzB
If you want to understand a topic you have to hear all sides.
Yep there is substance in some Russian points
- Ukraine is, somewhat, artificial as a country (bear with me)
- In Crimea a lot of people celebrated the takeover. The referendum was rigged but there was a tangible popular support
- In Donbass some people are not really fans of the Ukrainian government. I know people from Donetsk that prefer the Russians
- People in Donbass suffered from continuous shelling from Ukrainian forces (I don't want to emphasize the "Nazi" affiliation of the Azov brigade because it's a propaganda point but yes, there have been incidents and civilians suffered). Donbass reminds me of Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and I can see both sides
- Yes EU and the US pushed for bringing Ukraine into the West and funded their people there
- There is definitely a very high level of corruption in Ukraine, especially in the political echelon. Some EU-friendly policies have been obtained by corruption
That said I agree with most of the criticism of Putin's regime too. And of course invading a country that is becoming more democratic precisely because they want to defend themselves from you is a crime.
And Ukraine is a bit artificial (not 100% artificial but it's not a country with an established culture and identity) but it's exactly those events, like this war, that make it more and more real. The Ukrainian identity is becoming stronger and stronger hour by hour.
Yep there is substance in some Russian points
- Ukraine is, somewhat, artificial as a country (bear with me)
- In Crimea a lot of people celebrated the takeover. The referendum was rigged but there was a tangible popular support
- In Donbass some people are not really fans of the Ukrainian government. I know people from Donetsk that prefer the Russians
- People in Donbass suffered from continuous shelling from Ukrainian forces (I don't want to emphasize the "Nazi" affiliation of the Azov brigade because it's a propaganda point but yes, there have been incidents and civilians suffered). Donbass reminds me of Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and I can see both sides
- Yes EU and the US pushed for bringing Ukraine into the West and funded their people there
- There is definitely a very high level of corruption in Ukraine, especially in the political echelon. Some EU-friendly policies have been obtained by corruption
That said I agree with most of the criticism of Putin's regime too. And of course invading a country that is becoming more democratic precisely because they want to defend themselves from you is a crime.
And Ukraine is a bit artificial (not 100% artificial but it's not a country with an established culture and identity) but it's exactly those events, like this war, that make it more and more real. The Ukrainian identity is becoming stronger and stronger hour by hour.
Reading his speech, both the one before the invasion and the leaked one that was supposed to go up after victory confirms this. Putins objective is genocide.
> We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face
Recognize the annexation of Crimea and promise immediate sanctions rollbacks the moment the last Russian troop leaves Ukraine (other than Donbas and Luhansk, that ship has sailed).
Recognize the annexation of Crimea and promise immediate sanctions rollbacks the moment the last Russian troop leaves Ukraine (other than Donbas and Luhansk, that ship has sailed).
So you mean to provide Russia with a more stable platform from which to invade again in say, 5 years?
You don't change any of the context that led Russia to invade in the first place. You leave intact an aggressor who has repeatedly and consistently expanded. You gave them Crimea and hoped that would appease them. You tolerated their aggressions in eastern Ukraine. Now you will just give them Donbas and Luhansk and hope once again to appease them?
That strategy might be better accepted if the world hadn't seen 1938-1939.
You don't change any of the context that led Russia to invade in the first place. You leave intact an aggressor who has repeatedly and consistently expanded. You gave them Crimea and hoped that would appease them. You tolerated their aggressions in eastern Ukraine. Now you will just give them Donbas and Luhansk and hope once again to appease them?
That strategy might be better accepted if the world hadn't seen 1938-1939.
Give them Crimea in exchange for an agreement that Ukraine be allowed to apply to join NATO.
Give them Sudeten in exchange for promise that they will not attack Poland.
This tactic worked well for 8 years in the case of Ukraine and was heavily (really heavily) promoted by François Hollande and Angela Merkel.
IMHO, it's good to stick to a tactic with proven track record. The main idea is to feed the monster with virgins. Give them Crimea, then Donbas, then Belarus, then South Ukraine, then Eastern Ukraine, then Central Ukraine, then Western Ukraine, then Georgia, then Finland, etc., etc., etc. With a few years between each scarification, this can keep the monster satiated for a long time, so it will be a problem of your children, while you keep a comfortable style of life. For bang per $, this is the cheapest and safest option for most Europeans and Americans.
This tactic worked well for 8 years in the case of Ukraine and was heavily (really heavily) promoted by François Hollande and Angela Merkel.
IMHO, it's good to stick to a tactic with proven track record. The main idea is to feed the monster with virgins. Give them Crimea, then Donbas, then Belarus, then South Ukraine, then Eastern Ukraine, then Central Ukraine, then Western Ukraine, then Georgia, then Finland, etc., etc., etc. With a few years between each scarification, this can keep the monster satiated for a long time, so it will be a problem of your children, while you keep a comfortable style of life. For bang per $, this is the cheapest and safest option for most Europeans and Americans.
If the remainder of Ukraine is covered by NATO after the appeasement, that's the end of Russian aggression.
There is no "and then" with NATO member sovereign territory.
Ukraine is only being invaded by Russia because it isn't a NATO member.
Russia was willing to invade Ukraine, for some land. Russia isn't willing to invade 28 European countries + US + Canada, for some land.
There is no "and then" with NATO member sovereign territory.
Ukraine is only being invaded by Russia because it isn't a NATO member.
Russia was willing to invade Ukraine, for some land. Russia isn't willing to invade 28 European countries + US + Canada, for some land.
> Russia was willing to invade Ukraine, for some land
Where did you even get this idea? Russia is the largest country in the entire world, encompassing 1/8th of the inhabitable land on Earth ALONE. Why would they get in a fight with the entire world to get a few more hundred squared kilometers of dirt? That doesn't make the remotest sense.
Where did you even get this idea? Russia is the largest country in the entire world, encompassing 1/8th of the inhabitable land on Earth ALONE. Why would they get in a fight with the entire world to get a few more hundred squared kilometers of dirt? That doesn't make the remotest sense.
If you don't believe this is about strategic territory, then what do you think it's about?
Nice job of comparing an entire population with more history and culture than you can ever dream of, to a "monster" that feeds itself with virgins. Flagged. This is an open display of racial hate fed by propaganda.
I also think this is the most viable offramp. Everyone gets to plausibly claim victory, if not total victory.
Russia keeps the money pit dear to the hearts of many Russians and doesn't become a Chinese vassal state. Ukraine ends the bloodshed and saves their sovereignty for the cost of what they have already lost.
There will be sticking points, for sure, notably around Putin himself, reparations, and yes, the status of DPR and LPR, but I hold out hope that they don't forestall a potential deal.
Russia keeps the money pit dear to the hearts of many Russians and doesn't become a Chinese vassal state. Ukraine ends the bloodshed and saves their sovereignty for the cost of what they have already lost.
There will be sticking points, for sure, notably around Putin himself, reparations, and yes, the status of DPR and LPR, but I hold out hope that they don't forestall a potential deal.
Sorry, but I don't think there's an offramp.
I can't see the Russian leadership backing down from their stated goals. That means they have to subdue Ukraine, and probably Finland, Estonia and Poland too. If they don't win in at least Ukraine, then they have lost badly, and their economy is destroyed.
I don't think they'll settle now for a piece of Crimea or a piece of Donbas. The entire story is that the whole of Ukraine is a bogus state.
I can't see the Russian leadership backing down from their stated goals. That means they have to subdue Ukraine, and probably Finland, Estonia and Poland too. If they don't win in at least Ukraine, then they have lost badly, and their economy is destroyed.
I don't think they'll settle now for a piece of Crimea or a piece of Donbas. The entire story is that the whole of Ukraine is a bogus state.
> Finland, Estonia and Poland
That would be a hell of an escalation. Emphasis on hell. Estonia and Poland are NATO members, which means WW3. And attacking Finland, though not yet a NATO member, would probably invite the largest response from Europe in memory. World war indeed.
That would be a hell of an escalation. Emphasis on hell. Estonia and Poland are NATO members, which means WW3. And attacking Finland, though not yet a NATO member, would probably invite the largest response from Europe in memory. World war indeed.
> which means WW3.
Customarily, it's been called a "World War" when both sides have participants from multiple nations. As far as I'm aware, Russia's only ally would be Belarus, which looks to me like a Russian province in all but name.
"WWIII" is a term that also refers to Global Thermonuclear War; if that's what you meant, then I apologise for being pedantic.
[Edit] No attack on Poland or the Baltic states is possible without first subduing Ukraine; so I don't think that's at all imminent. But I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pops a tactical nuke or two in Ukraine, then all bets will be off.
Customarily, it's been called a "World War" when both sides have participants from multiple nations. As far as I'm aware, Russia's only ally would be Belarus, which looks to me like a Russian province in all but name.
"WWIII" is a term that also refers to Global Thermonuclear War; if that's what you meant, then I apologise for being pedantic.
[Edit] No attack on Poland or the Baltic states is possible without first subduing Ukraine; so I don't think that's at all imminent. But I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pops a tactical nuke or two in Ukraine, then all bets will be off.
I figured it was that concerted civilian targeting will force NATO to act. Or perhaps that the close ties between the two countries is still somewhat able to override Putin's shitty bloodthirsty instincts in some ways.
I'm beginning to doubt that.
When Biden said in the SOTU that Americans were going to be okay he basically put the last nail in the coffin of NATO intervention, sorry guys
Don't forget about option (d), try to kill everyone in Ukraine. Less than 100 years have passed since Stalin attempted exactly that, by killing all the farmers and selling all the food.
It's hard to know what that would serve to accomplish, considering it contradicts Putin's entire ethos for invading in the first place: he fundamentally views Ukrainians as culturally Russian, and wants to bring them back "into the fold." His entire rhetoric is adamant about that--it's why he uses words like genocide when talking about eastern Ukraine. I can't see how (d), which in effect would be genocide, would do anything but erode any possibility of support for the war effort, considering the family ties to Ukraine held by Russian nationals.
Rhetoric is rhetoric: it provides a smokescreen. Geostrategically, Putin wants what every ruler of Russia has wanted since it was the Principality of Muscovy: control of the North European Plain, in order to prevent invasion from the west.[1][2]
An empty, derelict Ukraine would serve nearly as well as a puppet state for this purpose.
1. It's worth reading some geography and history. Russia has been invaded a lot, and has a justifiable fear of invasion. Sure, the West might not want to invade now, but who can predict what the situation will be in 2070 or 2170?
2. Putin also wants to maintain the viability of Russia's warm-water port at Sevastopol. The Crimean peninsula was formerly supplied with water by a canal from Ukraine, but that was blocked after Russia annexed Crimea, and Crimea is now desperately short of water. And there is the small matter of major unexploited gas fields in the Black Sea between Crimea and (the rest of) Ukraine...
An empty, derelict Ukraine would serve nearly as well as a puppet state for this purpose.
1. It's worth reading some geography and history. Russia has been invaded a lot, and has a justifiable fear of invasion. Sure, the West might not want to invade now, but who can predict what the situation will be in 2070 or 2170?
2. Putin also wants to maintain the viability of Russia's warm-water port at Sevastopol. The Crimean peninsula was formerly supplied with water by a canal from Ukraine, but that was blocked after Russia annexed Crimea, and Crimea is now desperately short of water. And there is the small matter of major unexploited gas fields in the Black Sea between Crimea and (the rest of) Ukraine...
He does not need to prevent invasion from the west, just having the nukes automatically prevents that and he knows it.
One of the first thing the Russians did was unblock that canal that Ukraine cemented. That plus them sending cannon fodder to the nord and what seems like better troops south + east starts to feel like this whole war is more about a resource grab than to "prevent invasion from the west". I could maybe understand one madman feeling like he wants to rebuild the past USSR glory but if it's all about the money that can be made from oil/gas then it's clear it's not just him driving this.
One of the first thing the Russians did was unblock that canal that Ukraine cemented. That plus them sending cannon fodder to the nord and what seems like better troops south + east starts to feel like this whole war is more about a resource grab than to "prevent invasion from the west". I could maybe understand one madman feeling like he wants to rebuild the past USSR glory but if it's all about the money that can be made from oil/gas then it's clear it's not just him driving this.
>It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly.
As a way of self-preservation. USSR lost 13K people in 10 years of Afghanistan war. Russia has already lost 6K in 7 days of Ukraine war. Ukrainians are fighting in whatever way they can and tearing Russians a new one. Among the first questions they ask Russian POWs is "Did you shoot?"
>I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision,
Russia is running out of high precision weapons, and this one of the reason of them starting to use older non high precision weapons and thus corresponding rise in civilian hits (with the other reason being is that they have already stricken most of the military targets, and the Ukrainians resistance not only didn't decrease, instead it grew tremendously, and so Russians are moving onto non-military targets like civil government offices, TV station, etc).
> Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences
stay strong, don't fall for Putin's propaganda.
Wrt. the original article - Russia doesn't have much of new hardware which it has been showcasing over the last years. Most of Russian hardware like planes and armor are somewhat modernized old USSR hardware, and even that mostly is not working due to lacking parts, bad technical service, etc. Now spread this over large territory as you can't leave airforce say in Far East naked. So whatever Russia could have mustered without severe impact to its overall military capability over the whole territory was barely enough only for the originally planned Blitzkrieg, and the Blitzkrieg has utterly failed.
As a way of self-preservation. USSR lost 13K people in 10 years of Afghanistan war. Russia has already lost 6K in 7 days of Ukraine war. Ukrainians are fighting in whatever way they can and tearing Russians a new one. Among the first questions they ask Russian POWs is "Did you shoot?"
>I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision,
Russia is running out of high precision weapons, and this one of the reason of them starting to use older non high precision weapons and thus corresponding rise in civilian hits (with the other reason being is that they have already stricken most of the military targets, and the Ukrainians resistance not only didn't decrease, instead it grew tremendously, and so Russians are moving onto non-military targets like civil government offices, TV station, etc).
> Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences
stay strong, don't fall for Putin's propaganda.
Wrt. the original article - Russia doesn't have much of new hardware which it has been showcasing over the last years. Most of Russian hardware like planes and armor are somewhat modernized old USSR hardware, and even that mostly is not working due to lacking parts, bad technical service, etc. Now spread this over large territory as you can't leave airforce say in Far East naked. So whatever Russia could have mustered without severe impact to its overall military capability over the whole territory was barely enough only for the originally planned Blitzkrieg, and the Blitzkrieg has utterly failed.
It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly.
We must define "efforts" or "avoid" very differently. At the very start of the invasion, there was a video of Russian tanks deliberately trying to run over civilian cars.
We must define "efforts" or "avoid" very differently. At the very start of the invasion, there was a video of Russian tanks deliberately trying to run over civilian cars.
The video I think you are referring to shows the tank swerving to avoid incoming fire and (presumably accidentally) running over a civilian car.
So much is hard to verify but I think there's reason to believe that the vehicle was Ukranian. It lacked the V Z etc white letters and it was a lone anti-aircraft vehicle wandering through the city, not something that's put right on the battle line. Again, hard to know what's truth and propaganda. Either way, that vehicle was fairly out of control so regardless of who was driving it, I don't think it was intentional.
It was actually an accident. The tank was Ukrainian and the driver had very poor visibility, hence the swerve on top of civilian (70+ senior actually, that miraculously didn't got any injury) car.
Russian tank - deliberate run-over. Blast about it from all media channels.
Oh, it's a Ukrainian tank. Pfft, it was in a accident, let's not talk about it.
That's why I don't read/watch news, especially nowadays.
Oh, it's a Ukrainian tank. Pfft, it was in a accident, let's not talk about it.
That's why I don't read/watch news, especially nowadays.
I mean it’s pretty hard to avoid the ‘news’ since just about everything is a ‘news’ source these days, but it is fairly easy to just assess the data provided and leave the interpretation for more facts to arrive.
Video: tank runs over car. Gut reaction? Bit of horror, concern. Judgement? Reserve
Ukraine wouldn't be putting 70 year olds in tanks if it wasn't being invaded in an unprovoked war by a much larger neighbor (and no, the goal of punishing NATO for not giving Russia a blank check to invade Ukraine by invading Ukraine is not a valid provocation).
70+ year old was in the car, not in the tank.
what i read was that it was some ukrainian pro-russian "saboteurs" that stole the tank and went on a rampage.
i can't even remember where i read that now so take it with a grain of salt
i can't even remember where i read that now so take it with a grain of salt
The civilian casualties are obviously tragic, but they are not beyond the scale that we've seen in recent wars the US has fought.
Ukraine population is brain washed by west propaganda. They’ll brain wash them with Russian propaganda and that’s about it.
It’s all about controlling the media.
It’s all about controlling the media.
They are afraid of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
a very good technology that the Soviet Union developed which punches above its weight in situations like the Ukraine war because the mobile radars are hard to suppress with these methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...
I have seen a huge number of Buks in various conditions in video footage from the war, one of them was scurrying around the 'suburban' areas of Kiev. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the early missile hits on residential buildings were something like this that failed to lock on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile
Ukraine has a lot of Buks, it has a handful of these too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system
on paper those are better than the Buk but Ukraine doesn't have so many and I think the Buk is a "cheap and cheerful" convivial weapon like the AK-47 that does great when exported.
(Both the Buk and S-300 are a lot like the US Patriot missile system in that they are comprised of a number of mobile units such as command posts, radar, missile launchers, etc. The Buk however has a configuration where the radar and missile launcher are colocated on the same vehicle and I'd guess that configuration works really well under rough conditions with less trained crews.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
a very good technology that the Soviet Union developed which punches above its weight in situations like the Ukraine war because the mobile radars are hard to suppress with these methods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen...
I have seen a huge number of Buks in various conditions in video footage from the war, one of them was scurrying around the 'suburban' areas of Kiev. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the early missile hits on residential buildings were something like this that failed to lock on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile
Ukraine has a lot of Buks, it has a handful of these too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system
on paper those are better than the Buk but Ukraine doesn't have so many and I think the Buk is a "cheap and cheerful" convivial weapon like the AK-47 that does great when exported.
(Both the Buk and S-300 are a lot like the US Patriot missile system in that they are comprised of a number of mobile units such as command posts, radar, missile launchers, etc. The Buk however has a configuration where the radar and missile launcher are colocated on the same vehicle and I'd guess that configuration works really well under rough conditions with less trained crews.)
Buk isn't a "cheap and cheerful" alternative to S-300. Soviet air defense doctrine was a multilayered approach featuring systems at almost every organizational level from infantry squad up to theater. Buk and S-300 serve at different organizational levels. Both are competent systems and ironically are probably more effective against Soviet derived air forces than western ones.
Starting in WW2 and moving forward each side took a very different evolutionary path in terms of air power and air defense. The west relied far more on combat air craft for air defense because that's what worked on the western front. The soviets had a very different experience in the war and had to fight while being under constant attack from German airpower through most of the war. So they focused on giving their army its own air defense capability.
Fast forward 80 years and western militaries will have a few SAM systems like the larger patriot and the Stringer MANPADS but will primarily rely on fighters to clear the skies. While the Russians have a SAM for every situation and a much smaller tactical air force. The west has also since Vietnam spent a lot of effort on defeating Soviet style SAM systems with improved SEAD tactics and equipment whereas it was never a concern for the Russians because there isn't much in the way of SAMs to suppress.
For those reasons you end up with the ironic twist of Russian SAMs being especially effective against Russian aircraft because they didn't prepare to counter their own systems. They DO have anti-radiation missiles and strike aircraft but not as many as the west and their doctrine is not nearly as well practiced.
Starting in WW2 and moving forward each side took a very different evolutionary path in terms of air power and air defense. The west relied far more on combat air craft for air defense because that's what worked on the western front. The soviets had a very different experience in the war and had to fight while being under constant attack from German airpower through most of the war. So they focused on giving their army its own air defense capability.
Fast forward 80 years and western militaries will have a few SAM systems like the larger patriot and the Stringer MANPADS but will primarily rely on fighters to clear the skies. While the Russians have a SAM for every situation and a much smaller tactical air force. The west has also since Vietnam spent a lot of effort on defeating Soviet style SAM systems with improved SEAD tactics and equipment whereas it was never a concern for the Russians because there isn't much in the way of SAMs to suppress.
For those reasons you end up with the ironic twist of Russian SAMs being especially effective against Russian aircraft because they didn't prepare to counter their own systems. They DO have anti-radiation missiles and strike aircraft but not as many as the west and their doctrine is not nearly as well practiced.
You are right about more emphasis on fighters in the U.S. Also the U.S. put its best anti-aircraft missiles on ships.
True. The Navy has spent more resources on perfecting SAMs than the Army or Air Force have. Standard Missile and Aegis are a very potent combination. So much so that they adapted it to ground based setups with "Aegis Ashore" which is literally the system taken straight off an Arleigh Burke class destroyer and installed as a ground based missile defense system.
I worked on the software for the Ageis and Iron Dome systems. The program got off to a rocky start but once we got things dialed in, it's accuracy became exceptional
I think Aegis and SM are some of the biggest success stories out of the defense sector over the last few decades. Not only is it mature and effective but its also scalable and from what I understand they managed to port the codebase to modern x86 servers and make the libraries more modular as well.
The US blue-water navy has many similar problems to the Soviet Army. Specifically: operating out of range of land-based friendly fighters and interceptors.
And since there are only so many carriers, naval aviation also can't be assumed.
Consequently, SAMs are prioritized, compared to the army or air force.
And since there are only so many carriers, naval aviation also can't be assumed.
Consequently, SAMs are prioritized, compared to the army or air force.
That's what the KC-46 and KC-135 are for
Tankers don't solve transit time for Atlantic and Pacific-magnitude distances.
What transit time? The Airforce establishes air superiority starting at the carrier and extending out the aircraft combat range (500-700miles) + refueling range (500miles) + missile standoff range (300miles). It's a pretty big sphere of influence and the US has 14 of them.
And does that for every ship in the Navy? All the time?
Because if not, they're launching from Okinawa or Guam.
And they don't show up instantly hundreds of miles from there, at the ship's location.
Because if not, they're launching from Okinawa or Guam.
And they don't show up instantly hundreds of miles from there, at the ship's location.
It's wild how many anti-air systems they have deployed, for an almost non-existent enemy air force. At this point they must be effectively supplying the enemy their SAM systems. Very expensive, too - saw a $15M system ditched in a field because the shitty KAMAZ truck carrying it broke its axle.
It's partly doctrine, that's just what they do. Highly mobile AA traveling with the armor is their thing and why change up your process right in the middle of a big deployment (rhetorically, obviously).
The other reason is if things go south and the US/EU decides Putin is bluffing on the nukes, they'll for sure wish they had it because NATO aircraft would color the sky gray.
The other reason is if things go south and the US/EU decides Putin is bluffing on the nukes, they'll for sure wish they had it because NATO aircraft would color the sky gray.
> convivial weapon
I had a quick chuckle at that. It reminds me of an old joke: a bullet has your name on it, a hand grenade is addressed "to whom it may concern", and a mortar shell is posted general delivery.
I had a quick chuckle at that. It reminds me of an old joke: a bullet has your name on it, a hand grenade is addressed "to whom it may concern", and a mortar shell is posted general delivery.
What does that make nuclear warfare, a comprehensive spam campaign?
Linkedin notifications maybe
We're calling because your car's warranty policy is about to expire!
Ouch. Black humor.
@here
Sputnik: A brief alarm heard around the world, followed by an infinitude of silence.
An influencer’s Twitter feed.
Yes, see USPS bulk mail.
If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.
I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known.
And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. There's an active war. If history has taught us anything, psyops is as sure as death, in war.
And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. There's an active war. If history has taught us anything, psyops is as sure as death, in war.
> I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known.
That explains the anonymous officials not agreeing with this stance. That doesn't explain the non-government experts not agreeing that this is the reason though. They don't have any special knowledge and wouldn't be telling the Russians anything they didn't already know.
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent
There's probably a degree of this, but from what I've seen it also seems to be legitimately the case that they are somewhat incompetent.
Besides which, the Russian's letting that psyop succeed, would itself be direct evidence of incompetence.
That explains the anonymous officials not agreeing with this stance. That doesn't explain the non-government experts not agreeing that this is the reason though. They don't have any special knowledge and wouldn't be telling the Russians anything they didn't already know.
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent
There's probably a degree of this, but from what I've seen it also seems to be legitimately the case that they are somewhat incompetent.
Besides which, the Russian's letting that psyop succeed, would itself be direct evidence of incompetence.
Re: psyops, Russia has many of the same weaknesses as China, in that their practitioners cannot conceive of an independent, actively contradicting and adversarial infosphere.
Inside Russia or China, psyops is muting whoever says something you don't like, and deciding on and disseminating the message of the day.
Outside of Russia or China, that looks very different, with everyone opining on your message whenever they feel like it, in addition to virality being a huge component of message reach. That's a very different skillset to navigate successfully.
Inside Russia or China, psyops is muting whoever says something you don't like, and deciding on and disseminating the message of the day.
Outside of Russia or China, that looks very different, with everyone opining on your message whenever they feel like it, in addition to virality being a huge component of message reach. That's a very different skillset to navigate successfully.
>
And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent.
It's not a strong possibility, it's a 100% guarantee.
Aside from big, trivially disproven announcements ("This side now controls such and such city"), you're not going to see an accurate picture of literally anything in this conflict until months, if not years after the fact, when historians will pour over, and fit together first-hand accounts and records.
In the meantime, parts of the picture may be accurate, but nobody here has any idea which parts are true, which are propaganda, or what particular purpose that propaganda serves.
It's not a strong possibility, it's a 100% guarantee.
Aside from big, trivially disproven announcements ("This side now controls such and such city"), you're not going to see an accurate picture of literally anything in this conflict until months, if not years after the fact, when historians will pour over, and fit together first-hand accounts and records.
In the meantime, parts of the picture may be accurate, but nobody here has any idea which parts are true, which are propaganda, or what particular purpose that propaganda serves.
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent.
Definitely. You're not going to hear about the encounters where the Russians smoke the Ukrainians and they have serious loss of life/equipment or don't come back at all.
Not that there's not a lot of organic sentiment around the world, but Ukraine seems to have a very good PR corps pushing news of their victories and memes about the situation. And unlike a lot of these attempts, they aren't "how do you do fellow kids" type shit where it's super obvious.
Exhibit A: the Ghost of Kiev. Regardless of whether he exists or not, he's a great case study in propaganda.
Definitely. You're not going to hear about the encounters where the Russians smoke the Ukrainians and they have serious loss of life/equipment or don't come back at all.
Not that there's not a lot of organic sentiment around the world, but Ukraine seems to have a very good PR corps pushing news of their victories and memes about the situation. And unlike a lot of these attempts, they aren't "how do you do fellow kids" type shit where it's super obvious.
Exhibit A: the Ghost of Kiev. Regardless of whether he exists or not, he's a great case study in propaganda.
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent.
Given their unencrypted radio communication they have done a fair effort to support that idea themselves.
Given their unencrypted radio communication they have done a fair effort to support that idea themselves.
I don't see how that's a sign of incompetence, rather than a sign of aging military equipment. Incompetence would be relaying important, uncoded, information over an unencrypted signal, in a way that would result in some disadvantage.
For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption.
For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption.
> For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption
Of course it would. Otherwise:
* the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse:
* the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch
There's no excuse for unencrypted military communications. One would think the Russians would have learned their lesson from freaking Tannenberg a century ago, but it seems not.
Of course it would. Otherwise:
* the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse:
* the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch
There's no excuse for unencrypted military communications. One would think the Russians would have learned their lesson from freaking Tannenberg a century ago, but it seems not.
> the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse
Encryption won't encrypt the shell going through the wall, which could just as easily be analyzed with the constellation of spy satellites focused on the region.
> the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch
This would be uncoded communications that would put them at a disadvantage. If that did happen, then yes it would be incompetence. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I find it unlikely that they would believe any voice coming over the line, considering what you're saying is an "attack vector" that has been present and known for, literally, the last 131 years.
Do you have anything that supports this very negative view of the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander?
Encryption won't encrypt the shell going through the wall, which could just as easily be analyzed with the constellation of spy satellites focused on the region.
> the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch
This would be uncoded communications that would put them at a disadvantage. If that did happen, then yes it would be incompetence. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I find it unlikely that they would believe any voice coming over the line, considering what you're saying is an "attack vector" that has been present and known for, literally, the last 131 years.
Do you have anything that supports this very negative view of the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander?
i don't believe GP was specifically impugning the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander, more commenting on the apparently high displayed level of incompetence shown in the field so far (of which the use of wide-open unencrypted HF radio comms with basic tone squelch/CTCSS at the company<->battalion<->brigade level is just one example).
it was not a critique of intelligence, if anything it was a critique pointing out the failure of high-level RU military planners. what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to, transmitted on and also easily jammed by consumer-grade cheap chinese radios?
that is madness. it is incompetent.
(edit: for grammar)
it was not a critique of intelligence, if anything it was a critique pointing out the failure of high-level RU military planners. what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to, transmitted on and also easily jammed by consumer-grade cheap chinese radios?
that is madness. it is incompetent.
(edit: for grammar)
> what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to
One that is part of a military that has old radio equipment (maybe from competently allocating funding to something more important), so they have no other choice. I'm sorry, but that doesn't require incompetence. Incompetence would be if they let it unexpectedly impact their invasion. Competence for an invasion doesn't require encryption (see Crimea). An encrypted radio channel makes things easier, but it may not be required for the invasion of Ukraine, which is the context here.
The definition of competence: the ability to do something successfully or efficiently.
The purpose of this war isn't to unlock all achievements with a high score, it's to take Ukraine. They're still progressively taking Ukraine, and they've only sent in 1/3 of the forces from the border (last numbers I saw).
Yes it's madness.
One that is part of a military that has old radio equipment (maybe from competently allocating funding to something more important), so they have no other choice. I'm sorry, but that doesn't require incompetence. Incompetence would be if they let it unexpectedly impact their invasion. Competence for an invasion doesn't require encryption (see Crimea). An encrypted radio channel makes things easier, but it may not be required for the invasion of Ukraine, which is the context here.
The definition of competence: the ability to do something successfully or efficiently.
The purpose of this war isn't to unlock all achievements with a high score, it's to take Ukraine. They're still progressively taking Ukraine, and they've only sent in 1/3 of the forces from the border (last numbers I saw).
Yes it's madness.
There are many possible explanations, so latching onto the first one that sounds plausible is not necessarily the correct one. Otherwise, we would all be like those pundits on TV.
Several reasons might also be simultaneously true. Some simple examples: Russia might be testing NATO. Russia might not want to escalate in certain ways. There have been many countries whose leaders want to minimize the numbers they kill, while still killing many people. Russia might not want to reveal otherwise unknown capabilities. They might be preparing their air to strike elsewhere, possibly unrelated to Ukraine. There might be a revolt inside Russia's military. And so forth. But, what's likely? Maybe they just don't want to kill everyone or create dissent.
Several reasons might also be simultaneously true. Some simple examples: Russia might be testing NATO. Russia might not want to escalate in certain ways. There have been many countries whose leaders want to minimize the numbers they kill, while still killing many people. Russia might not want to reveal otherwise unknown capabilities. They might be preparing their air to strike elsewhere, possibly unrelated to Ukraine. There might be a revolt inside Russia's military. And so forth. But, what's likely? Maybe they just don't want to kill everyone or create dissent.
It wouldn't be unhelpful to increase the sortie rate of Baltic air policing missions and extend them over the Finnish border (with Finnish permission).
Potentially hostile assets require matching defensive stationing, even if they aren't doing anything aggressive. Fighters in Murmansk / Severomorsk aren't in Ukraine.
"Fleet in being" works for air forces too.
Potentially hostile assets require matching defensive stationing, even if they aren't doing anything aggressive. Fighters in Murmansk / Severomorsk aren't in Ukraine.
"Fleet in being" works for air forces too.
Right now an "expert" is whoever says something that is aligned with media retoric.
The expert they are quoting is a pretty well known figure, who has been saying lots of things often not aligned with media retoric.
To borrow his twitter bio as an introduction
> PhD student @warstudies (Department of War Studies at Kings College). Senior Fellow @FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute). Previously @USMC (US Marine Corp), @ColumbiaSIPA (Columbia School of International and Public Affairs), @CentreAST (Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies), and @AlfaFellowship. Focused on Russian defense policy.
To imply that they're just pulling in random people is flat out wrong. This is a person who has been studying Russia from a military standpoint for many years.
To borrow his twitter bio as an introduction
> PhD student @warstudies (Department of War Studies at Kings College). Senior Fellow @FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute). Previously @USMC (US Marine Corp), @ColumbiaSIPA (Columbia School of International and Public Affairs), @CentreAST (Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies), and @AlfaFellowship. Focused on Russian defense policy.
To imply that they're just pulling in random people is flat out wrong. This is a person who has been studying Russia from a military standpoint for many years.
You can nearly always find a qualified individual who already is saying what you want said, just needing a microphone to say it louder or at the right time. That's how expert witnesses tend to work for instance.
Depends on what you mean by experts. The strategist I know said this is a political decision. They don't want to inflict too much damage to avoid bloody insurrections in the future. Russian aircrafts are not that precise. What is more, UA army received manpads. It's not worth it.
MANPADs are only effective at very low altitudes (AGL), fundamentally due to the inability to put much propulsion on a rocket intended to be carried by hand. Su-27s, Su-34s, and Su-35s should fly significantly higher than this altitude during strike and interdiction missions, but doing so exposes them to radar-guided SAM systems like the aforementioned Buk (SA-11 / SA-17) or S-300 (SA-10 / SA-12 / SA-20).
You can see on some clips how low there were flying - well within the range of manpads. As I said, it could be because they don't have a good high precision munitions.
> They don't want to inflict too much damage
Have you seen what they have done to Mariupol and Kharkiv the last few days? Maybe this was the original plan, but with that botched there seems to be no consideration for damage to civilians.
Have you seen what they have done to Mariupol and Kharkiv the last few days? Maybe this was the original plan, but with that botched there seems to be no consideration for damage to civilians.
yes, it seems they changed the strategy to Aleppo/Grozny
I don't see how that excuses their failure to achieve air superiority. The Ukrainian Air Force still manages to fly manned and unmanned missions and harass Russian equipment and logistics.
The "stumped" is not actually in the article.
FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back from actually using much of it (by air or ground). This war could have been over the day it started if Russia had used maximal force, and the conservative approach their actually using maximizes risks and casualties.
And that's what has the experts confused: they can't figure out why Russia is going with this strategy, given the overwhelming technological and numerical superiority of the invasion force and their apparent willingness to accept casualties as the cost of conquering Ukraine.
It doesn't appear to be cost, because the invasion has "cost" Russia hundreds of billions.
It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading.
It doesn't appear to be doctrine, because their actions don't match what is known of Russian ground or air doctrine.
And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world).
FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back from actually using much of it (by air or ground). This war could have been over the day it started if Russia had used maximal force, and the conservative approach their actually using maximizes risks and casualties.
And that's what has the experts confused: they can't figure out why Russia is going with this strategy, given the overwhelming technological and numerical superiority of the invasion force and their apparent willingness to accept casualties as the cost of conquering Ukraine.
It doesn't appear to be cost, because the invasion has "cost" Russia hundreds of billions.
It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading.
It doesn't appear to be doctrine, because their actions don't match what is known of Russian ground or air doctrine.
And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world).
> why Russia is going with this strategy
Because this isn't the intended strategy, but rather then resultant strategy.
Modern Russia seems to suffer from the same weaknesses as the USSR: garbage-in, garbage-out. If you staff an entire bureaucracy (including your military command structure) with Yes-Men, you get "Yes" responses.
When the question is "Are we prepared for the invasion?"
When the question is "Will we be able to supply our ground forces?"
When the question is "Will we be able to achieve air superiority rapidly?"
And because that's how hierarchies work, you believe the "Yes" you hear. And make your strategic plans on the basis of it being true.
Consequently, Russia appears to have built an entire invasion plan on a not-insignificant number of lies about their own forces, as communicated by their own mid-level leadership.
Imho, that explains things pretty simply and fully.
Because this isn't the intended strategy, but rather then resultant strategy.
Modern Russia seems to suffer from the same weaknesses as the USSR: garbage-in, garbage-out. If you staff an entire bureaucracy (including your military command structure) with Yes-Men, you get "Yes" responses.
When the question is "Are we prepared for the invasion?"
When the question is "Will we be able to supply our ground forces?"
When the question is "Will we be able to achieve air superiority rapidly?"
And because that's how hierarchies work, you believe the "Yes" you hear. And make your strategic plans on the basis of it being true.
Consequently, Russia appears to have built an entire invasion plan on a not-insignificant number of lies about their own forces, as communicated by their own mid-level leadership.
Imho, that explains things pretty simply and fully.
I think this could be a large part of it. Putin's Russia is rife with corruption and cronyism. Those two things can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of a military.
To start with, the yes-men problem means significant bad news is often buried not dealt with. It also results in the people who are the best at bs'ing and political manuevering being the ones who rise in the ranks. Your officer corps ends up being filled with people who did not optimize for military competency. Indeed General Shogyu, the Russian Minister of Defense, actually doesn't have a military background.
The corruption comes in with logisitical support. With significant levels of corruption you'll find that the amount of parts, munitions, fuel are not what you thought they were. Then you'll also probably have problems with the condition of the stuff you do have.
All of those things damage morale, competency, readiness, you name it. So when you actually have to go to war, you might find drastic shortfalls in battlefield performance.
To start with, the yes-men problem means significant bad news is often buried not dealt with. It also results in the people who are the best at bs'ing and political manuevering being the ones who rise in the ranks. Your officer corps ends up being filled with people who did not optimize for military competency. Indeed General Shogyu, the Russian Minister of Defense, actually doesn't have a military background.
The corruption comes in with logisitical support. With significant levels of corruption you'll find that the amount of parts, munitions, fuel are not what you thought they were. Then you'll also probably have problems with the condition of the stuff you do have.
All of those things damage morale, competency, readiness, you name it. So when you actually have to go to war, you might find drastic shortfalls in battlefield performance.
Yes, that appears to be the growing consensus among experts.
But the reason for the "confusion" (the "stumped" in the title) is that Russia has not historically operated this way under Putin (though it did operate this way under his predecessor). Basically, nothing is happening the way it has happened before (under Putin), and this appears to be a "new normal" (under Putin).
But the reason for the "confusion" (the "stumped" in the title) is that Russia has not historically operated this way under Putin (though it did operate this way under his predecessor). Basically, nothing is happening the way it has happened before (under Putin), and this appears to be a "new normal" (under Putin).
One cause could be the replacement of Minister of Defence from Serdyukov (notable for his anticorruption policies) with Shoygu (alleged yes man)
I think it's like this.
Russia eventually wants to bombard Kiev with heavy weapons like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado
which can use ammunition at an absolutely insane rate. It takes time to move this stuff into place and more time to take the ammunition in, set up resupply paths, etc.
So Russia attacks Kiev with a small force with light weapons, some Spetsnaz, mostly to keep the fight away from the main body of the force which will strike hard when it is ready.
Russia eventually wants to bombard Kiev with heavy weapons like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado
which can use ammunition at an absolutely insane rate. It takes time to move this stuff into place and more time to take the ammunition in, set up resupply paths, etc.
So Russia attacks Kiev with a small force with light weapons, some Spetsnaz, mostly to keep the fight away from the main body of the force which will strike hard when it is ready.
The problem with this take is Kyiv is more or less Russian Jerusalem. That’s one important difference from all other… special operations performed by Putin.
There's a consideration that Russia wants to actually minimize civilian deaths, because unlike Syria, territories of Ukraine will never stop neighbouring Russia. Different pieces of doctrine may apply.
But I'm not sure how it maps to observable absense of air force. Prolonging the conflict will obviously cause more civilian deaths and suffering.
But I'm not sure how it maps to observable absense of air force. Prolonging the conflict will obviously cause more civilian deaths and suffering.
It will be interesting to discover in the future if we find out a large number of things like planes were not available for the operation because their commanders ensured they were broken when the invasion occurred. Attacking the nation next door that speaks roughly your same language makes things like mutiny a larger risk.
I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions. They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, they just don't want NATO to be able to invade them by land.
I'd you assume this is true, what they are doing make complete sense.
I'd you assume this is true, what they are doing make complete sense.
> I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions.
That's very reasonable.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071766987/u-s-russia-dicuss-...
> Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."
That was, quite clearly, a lie, as they'd already massed 100,000 troops near Ukraine.
That's very reasonable.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071766987/u-s-russia-dicuss-...
> Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."
That was, quite clearly, a lie, as they'd already massed 100,000 troops near Ukraine.
As to the "no plans" part: https://www.facebook.com/otueast/photos/pcb.668374907921586/...
> I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions
They are.
You are just listening to the wrong articulation of their intentions.
> They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine,
They have said multiple times that they do want Ukraine, view it's separation from Russia as a crime against Russia and Russians committed by those in the past with control over Russia in the form of the Soviet Union, and Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.)
Now, that's not what they emphasize to the international community, but they have been saying it.
They are.
You are just listening to the wrong articulation of their intentions.
> They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine,
They have said multiple times that they do want Ukraine, view it's separation from Russia as a crime against Russia and Russians committed by those in the past with control over Russia in the form of the Soviet Union, and Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.)
Now, that's not what they emphasize to the international community, but they have been saying it.
* Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]< and Belarus.)*
Do you have more information about this?
Do you have more information about this?
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published...
> A Russian state-run news agency prematurely published an article that said Russia has taken back Ukraine.
> "Ukraine has returned to Russia," said the article, which ran on RIA Novosti and has since been taken down. "The West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe."
> A Russian state-run news agency prematurely published an article that said Russia has taken back Ukraine.
> "Ukraine has returned to Russia," said the article, which ran on RIA Novosti and has since been taken down. "The West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe."
The full text is even better. Talks about "solving the Ukrainian question" which sounds like a direct reference to Hitler's "Final Solution to Jew Question" or whatever that was called.
Except for when they said they were going to "show them real decommunization", kill everyone in government, that it didn't deserve to be a country and they should reform the Russian Empire, sure.
It seems that whether this succeeds or fails it'll actually increase their land borders with NATO.
It seems that whether this succeeds or fails it'll actually increase their land borders with NATO.
Russia has had a land border with NATO since 2004 when Latvia joined.
That simply doesn’t compute.
That simply doesn’t compute.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess you also missed Putin characterising Lenin's actions post-revolution as a mistake, and that the Russian Empire should move back to its pre-USSR borders? Or the prepared article that was mistakenly published crowing about the "final solution to the Ukrainian problem"?
Your selection of what to believe as the honest truth is pretty telling.
Your selection of what to believe as the honest truth is pretty telling.
Because there is a plethora of reasons given that you can choose from.
Denazification of the jewish russian speaking president.
Lawrow: Ukraine wants to aquire nukes and russia must prevent this. Propably trolling.
Half hearted false flags operations: Bombed car where the suspect was arrested the day before. Bombed out building with months old trees in it....
The aforementioned NATO ambitions of ukraine. ukraine was denied membership 14 years ago and things look even more impossible now with the territorial conflict about the crimea. Paradoxically russia is making ukraines medium term NATO membership more likely by solving the crimea conflict.
Russia wants to unite all Rus and everything else is just a smokescreen. Putin has given some rather 19th century speeches to that effect and there was this article that was published and then quickly taken down in some state owned newspaper (i think) https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/ Pretty scary stuff.
Denazification of the jewish russian speaking president.
Lawrow: Ukraine wants to aquire nukes and russia must prevent this. Propably trolling.
Half hearted false flags operations: Bombed car where the suspect was arrested the day before. Bombed out building with months old trees in it....
The aforementioned NATO ambitions of ukraine. ukraine was denied membership 14 years ago and things look even more impossible now with the territorial conflict about the crimea. Paradoxically russia is making ukraines medium term NATO membership more likely by solving the crimea conflict.
Russia wants to unite all Rus and everything else is just a smokescreen. Putin has given some rather 19th century speeches to that effect and there was this article that was published and then quickly taken down in some state owned newspaper (i think) https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/ Pretty scary stuff.
It's not really fair to say it's not in the article - it's the title of the article.
The author of the article does not choose the title, the editor does, based on what they think will draw more views/clicks.
I don't really care if it's the editor or the author - it's part of the article. Similarly, I don't care if it's served up over HTTP1 or HTTP2, it's irrelevant to the content of the document served up.
>It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading.
Conservative western intelligence estimates actually have this number at over 2000 this morning (3/1) [0]. They are losing whole battalions by the day, and the real nasty urban warfare hasn't even begun. It's an absolute bloodbath that would never even conceivably be tolerated for a moment by any other modern military on earth.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Conservative western intelligence estimates actually have this number at over 2000 this morning (3/1) [0]. They are losing whole battalions by the day, and the real nasty urban warfare hasn't even begun. It's an absolute bloodbath that would never even conceivably be tolerated for a moment by any other modern military on earth.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
If Russia did mass killings / carpet bombing / total war, it hands justification of the west for full counterattack and occupation of Ukraine.
Putin assumed all of Ukraine would roll over like Crimea. He has underestimated the people of Ukraine.
He attacked in winter assuming it would be over in two days. Now his already-low-morale forces face winter. I don't care if they are equipped and Russian and "used to war". This won't be WWI where you can build bunkers and hide in there. If you occupy a house, the local populace will email someone and you'll be a target of portable missile infantry.
He doesn't seem to have a plan B.
In theory, with good arms supply from the West (which is RIGHT OVER THE BORDER, this isn't Afghanistan that is 5000 miles away), the Ukrainian populace will get progressively better armed, more experienced (this is probably resulting in the training of a million or more Ukrainians to be effective soldiers), and more motivated.
If I were the US/NATO, I would be training and equipping as many Ukrainians as want it, and there should be millions of willing soldiers. This is the opportunity to produce a very dangerous military power right across the border from Russia. You get to breathe down the neck of the Belarus puppet strongman. And it might destroy Putin's regime by weakening him.
Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I know no Ukrainians, but I suspect they are sick and tired of him threatening him and are spoiling for a fight.
The danger to Putin is that the US could equip and train and season a millions-strong Ukrainian army that sees a very unmotivated Russian army, repulses them, and then counter invades Russia. Now that is unlikely given nuclear deterrent and the like, but it is within the realm of possibility, especially if elements of Russia's army hint they are amenable to regime change and will refuse to nuke.
Putin assumed all of Ukraine would roll over like Crimea. He has underestimated the people of Ukraine.
He attacked in winter assuming it would be over in two days. Now his already-low-morale forces face winter. I don't care if they are equipped and Russian and "used to war". This won't be WWI where you can build bunkers and hide in there. If you occupy a house, the local populace will email someone and you'll be a target of portable missile infantry.
He doesn't seem to have a plan B.
In theory, with good arms supply from the West (which is RIGHT OVER THE BORDER, this isn't Afghanistan that is 5000 miles away), the Ukrainian populace will get progressively better armed, more experienced (this is probably resulting in the training of a million or more Ukrainians to be effective soldiers), and more motivated.
If I were the US/NATO, I would be training and equipping as many Ukrainians as want it, and there should be millions of willing soldiers. This is the opportunity to produce a very dangerous military power right across the border from Russia. You get to breathe down the neck of the Belarus puppet strongman. And it might destroy Putin's regime by weakening him.
Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally. I know no Ukrainians, but I suspect they are sick and tired of him threatening him and are spoiling for a fight.
The danger to Putin is that the US could equip and train and season a millions-strong Ukrainian army that sees a very unmotivated Russian army, repulses them, and then counter invades Russia. Now that is unlikely given nuclear deterrent and the like, but it is within the realm of possibility, especially if elements of Russia's army hint they are amenable to regime change and will refuse to nuke.
Modern nuclear war doesn’t work that way. Commanders are progressively passed the order to nuke the same target until someone does. That’s why there’s so many of them, it’s a numbers game. Also it’s not all or nothing, at the start it’s tit for tat and hope you aren’t either!
> Putin also seems to have underestimated how much Ukraine hates him personally.
I doubt it's personal. Russia has dominated Ukraine over the centuries. Stories of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis in WWII are true enough; but at the time, Ukraine was ruled by Russia, which only a decade previously had imposed a famine on Ukraine that killed millions. Unsurprisingly, many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
I doubt it's personal. Russia has dominated Ukraine over the centuries. Stories of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis in WWII are true enough; but at the time, Ukraine was ruled by Russia, which only a decade previously had imposed a famine on Ukraine that killed millions. Unsurprisingly, many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
>And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world).
Because there was a much greater absence of incoherent strategies by political and military leaders in the world prior to Trump being president of one specific country? No real fan of the man but the need to cram in a Trump-hate reference for nearly any context sometimes becomes absurd.
Because there was a much greater absence of incoherent strategies by political and military leaders in the world prior to Trump being president of one specific country? No real fan of the man but the need to cram in a Trump-hate reference for nearly any context sometimes becomes absurd.
Yeah, it's clearly the Trump Presidency that led to Operation Barbarossa.
The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not.
Though you are right in that there are huge similarities between the two campaigns: in both cases, it appears that the executive leader ignored the advice of his military advisors to launch disastrous military campaigns that actually ended up hindering the non-military objectives behind those campaigns.
Though you are right in that there are huge similarities between the two campaigns: in both cases, it appears that the executive leader ignored the advice of his military advisors to launch disastrous military campaigns that actually ended up hindering the non-military objectives behind those campaigns.
> The difference is that Putin has previously accomplished himself as a competent military leader, and Hitler had not
What? Putin managed to force his vastly overwhelming forces on small countries with small and badly equipped armies like Chechnya, Syria, Georgia. And we don't know how much does he really do.
Hitler presided over, and even helped with the planning of, one of the most brilliant campaigns against overwhelming forces ( the invasion of Benelux and France). His army had tremendous luck, the French were thoroughly incompetent and prepared for all the wrong things, but still, it was a massive military success which was at least partly due to Hitler. That's how he got it in his head he's a brilliant strategist, which really went to his head after the initial Soviet counterattack ( when his orders were successful), and the rest is history.
What? Putin managed to force his vastly overwhelming forces on small countries with small and badly equipped armies like Chechnya, Syria, Georgia. And we don't know how much does he really do.
Hitler presided over, and even helped with the planning of, one of the most brilliant campaigns against overwhelming forces ( the invasion of Benelux and France). His army had tremendous luck, the French were thoroughly incompetent and prepared for all the wrong things, but still, it was a massive military success which was at least partly due to Hitler. That's how he got it in his head he's a brilliant strategist, which really went to his head after the initial Soviet counterattack ( when his orders were successful), and the rest is history.
I have to agree with this, by what logic has Putin established himself as a brilliant military strategist in contrast to what Hitler’s government had accomplished by 1941?
Agreed with the above comments about Putin definitively not having established himself as a competent military leader so far (and especially at the present time with this fiasco of a military invasion, again, so far).
But that aside, my original comment, despite having been downvoted, doesn't seem at all off base: Why in the world even bother to mention Trump except out of pure kneejerk emotional need in the context of unsound military leadership on the world stage. Poor invasion planning certainly existed long before he became president of the U.S. and the current disaster essentially has nothing to do with him or his lack/presence of military leadership skills.
But that aside, my original comment, despite having been downvoted, doesn't seem at all off base: Why in the world even bother to mention Trump except out of pure kneejerk emotional need in the context of unsound military leadership on the world stage. Poor invasion planning certainly existed long before he became president of the U.S. and the current disaster essentially has nothing to do with him or his lack/presence of military leadership skills.
The explanation which I have not seen discussed here is that this is a secret war, in Russia.
Putin called it a "special operation." Use of the term "war" in reference to this action has been banned in Russia. This secret war aspect may have had practical effects on command and control. It is possible that by not declaring this more than a limited special action, Putin's deployment options are actually limited.
Putin called it a "special operation." Use of the term "war" in reference to this action has been banned in Russia. This secret war aspect may have had practical effects on command and control. It is possible that by not declaring this more than a limited special action, Putin's deployment options are actually limited.
[deleted]
I always wonder how they developed things like that in the 70s. Right now I don’t know a single engineer that could even know how to begin to develop a system like that. I feel like most of them would try and throw a neural net at the problem and call it a day.
>I don’t know a single engineer that could even know how to begin to develop a system like that
It's called "controls engineering", and there are plenty of talented people in the field. But you are correct that people who sought a career in websites and cellphones have never heard of it.
(edit: s/cellphones/cellphone apps/)
It's called "controls engineering", and there are plenty of talented people in the field. But you are correct that people who sought a career in websites and cellphones have never heard of it.
(edit: s/cellphones/cellphone apps/)
Surface-to-air missiles were long a priority of the Soviets. They caused our fliers no end of trouble in Vietnam: this guy got shot down by a SAM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war
The Russian military is organized around a land defense of their homeland since they don't have the natural barriers the U.S. has (e.g. they last got invaded in 1941, we last got invaded in 1812.)
You might think they'd invest in fixed SAM systems but mobile SAM systems are so more survivable in a war because the radar for a SAM is highly visible. You really want to hide those systems in terrain and ambush planes going by.
Systems like that are most effective when they operate in a networked mode together with AWACS airplanes like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50
which use a "look down" pulse doppler radar which can see cruise missiles, UAVs and other low-flying threats. This is a great complement to the radar on a Patriot missile battery which is optimized to ballistic missile threats. Russia's latest S-500 system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missile_system
has crazy long range, it competes with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...
as an anti missile missile system but also it can (try to) take out a distant AWACS airplane with a direct shot.
The Russians DO NOT want an enemy to have air superiority over them anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war
The Russian military is organized around a land defense of their homeland since they don't have the natural barriers the U.S. has (e.g. they last got invaded in 1941, we last got invaded in 1812.)
You might think they'd invest in fixed SAM systems but mobile SAM systems are so more survivable in a war because the radar for a SAM is highly visible. You really want to hide those systems in terrain and ambush planes going by.
Systems like that are most effective when they operate in a networked mode together with AWACS airplanes like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-50
which use a "look down" pulse doppler radar which can see cruise missiles, UAVs and other low-flying threats. This is a great complement to the radar on a Patriot missile battery which is optimized to ballistic missile threats. Russia's latest S-500 system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missile_system
has crazy long range, it competes with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...
as an anti missile missile system but also it can (try to) take out a distant AWACS airplane with a direct shot.
The Russians DO NOT want an enemy to have air superiority over them anywhere.
I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500.
At the very least the Patriot SAM should be redesigned to allow for vertical launching to allow shooting in all directions. If you point Patriot one way and you get ambushed from behind you're basically caught with your pants down.
At the very least you'd need four Patriot missile launchers pointing in all directions to prevent this scenario.
At the very least the Patriot SAM should be redesigned to allow for vertical launching to allow shooting in all directions. If you point Patriot one way and you get ambushed from behind you're basically caught with your pants down.
At the very least you'd need four Patriot missile launchers pointing in all directions to prevent this scenario.
> I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500.
In my opinion it is because the American way of fighting a war doesn’t need it. Let say there is a troublesome country who would want to fly airplanes to shoot at American troops. The war plans against such a threat would start with two steps: 1st supress their air defences. 2nd gain full air dominance.
Supression of air defences is a polite way to say that they pulverize anything which can shoot US airplanes from the ground or even detect US airplanes using a radar.
Gaining full air dominance is a polite way to say that they aim to pulverize all enemy airplanes, runways, taxiways, fueling equipment and maintenance infrastructure.
If that is your method of operation why would you need mobile, survivable air defenses. People who routinely plan on destroying clouds (the source of rain) don’t need an umbrella.
In my opinion it is because the American way of fighting a war doesn’t need it. Let say there is a troublesome country who would want to fly airplanes to shoot at American troops. The war plans against such a threat would start with two steps: 1st supress their air defences. 2nd gain full air dominance.
Supression of air defences is a polite way to say that they pulverize anything which can shoot US airplanes from the ground or even detect US airplanes using a radar.
Gaining full air dominance is a polite way to say that they aim to pulverize all enemy airplanes, runways, taxiways, fueling equipment and maintenance infrastructure.
If that is your method of operation why would you need mobile, survivable air defenses. People who routinely plan on destroying clouds (the source of rain) don’t need an umbrella.
The best US air defense missiles are launched from ships. (These are so good that, like the S-500 they can shoot down satellites!)
That's the AEGIS system. It works better when land-based, from what I've read; it's dramatically more accurate than the purely naval fleet-defence version.
AEGIS is an integrated, networked system; multiple sensors on multiple platforms (including AWACS) collaborate to detect and hit targets.
There was an AEGIS-equipped ship either in the Black Sea, or trying to get in through the Bosphorus (now closed to naval traffic). The presence of AEGIS ships in the Black Sea would be enough to explain the non-appearance of the Russian airforce.
AEGIS is an integrated, networked system; multiple sensors on multiple platforms (including AWACS) collaborate to detect and hit targets.
There was an AEGIS-equipped ship either in the Black Sea, or trying to get in through the Bosphorus (now closed to naval traffic). The presence of AEGIS ships in the Black Sea would be enough to explain the non-appearance of the Russian airforce.
That's why it was funny that Turkey was ostracized for buying Russian/Chinese SAMs ( was it S-400 last or a Chinese version). What else could they possibly buy? The Patriot system isn't even close, and doesn't seem to be working too well for the UAE ( but then again we don't know how S-300/400/500 would deal against drones and light missiles)
My guess is that Russia doesn't have that many S-xxx missile systems, and further that they are much more expensive than the Turkish drones. I imagine they're keeping their powder dry, against the risk of NATO planes appearing over Ukraine.
Turkey bought S-300 systems and were pummeled for it.
I find this puzzling since Greece, also a NATO member, also purchased Russian S-300 systems but weren't penalized for it.
I find this puzzling since Greece, also a NATO member, also purchased Russian S-300 systems but weren't penalized for it.
Turkey bought S-400. Greece got S-300. Different systems.S-400 is an upgrade of the older S-300. Very similar, although the former may require internet connectivity and that's probably what worries NATO.
There are a myriad of versions of the S-300, from the original SA-10 introduced in the late 70's to the newest MPU version.
There are a myriad of versions of the S-300, from the original SA-10 introduced in the late 70's to the newest MPU version.
I'm guessing most mechanical and/or ECE programs still teach "control systems", and that might be where one begins, along with some "signals and systems" and RF classes.
I suspect that the engineers you know are more computer science "engineers" than people who went through a traditional engineering core.
I suspect that the engineers you know are more computer science "engineers" than people who went through a traditional engineering core.
And there's a fair cohort of us (note, US-based perspective here) that _did_ go through the traditional electrical engineering education, learned the hard math and analog/mixed-signal engineering needed to put together something like this, dipped our toes in the industry, and then realized all our CS buddies had double our base salaries for objectively easier work.
We've strongly disincentivized gaining mid-level expertise on hard engineering.
We've strongly disincentivized gaining mid-level expertise on hard engineering.
> and then realized all our CS buddies had double our base salaries for objectively easier work.
One thing I realised as a graduate student designing RF PCBs and digital circuits was that the debugger for reality sucks. It's really frustrating to be faced with a problem where you just can't get "more information by recompiling with debug flags" and can't easily (or reversibly!) change the system to make it easier to understand. Totally different skillset, and requires a different method of thinking (frankly, at times, with a lot more thought).
One thing I realised as a graduate student designing RF PCBs and digital circuits was that the debugger for reality sucks. It's really frustrating to be faced with a problem where you just can't get "more information by recompiling with debug flags" and can't easily (or reversibly!) change the system to make it easier to understand. Totally different skillset, and requires a different method of thinking (frankly, at times, with a lot more thought).
This is a huge part of it! I spent a couple years doing IC-level failure analysis, which involves cool toys like electron microscopes, ion beams, strong destructive chemistry… a lot of it was neat, but the feedback loops were hours at best, and often days. Compared with having CI just do this for you automatically, or having something like `guard` running locally, is utterly transformational by comparison.
This exactly.
The ABET mechanical and electrical engineering curricula combined would give you all the skills a team needed (perhaps with the aid of a physicist and chemist or two) to build this system.
That we have dissolved the word "engineer" to mean "ad salesman at scale" doesn't mean the traditional engineers aren't out there.
The ABET mechanical and electrical engineering curricula combined would give you all the skills a team needed (perhaps with the aid of a physicist and chemist or two) to build this system.
That we have dissolved the word "engineer" to mean "ad salesman at scale" doesn't mean the traditional engineers aren't out there.
I'm teaching in an ABET accredited program using MIT textbooks and I'm not impressed. If engineers want to avoid learning how to integrate by parts or use the chain rule it seems like a great idea. Arubis' comment above seems on point.
Are you saying that the current program lets them avoid learning those things, or that they should be allowed to avoid learning them?
I'm not sure I've seen a calculus course that skipped those (granted, it's been more than a decade since I looked at calculus courses). They certainly seem to still be within the remit of the FE - ECE exam.
I'm not sure I've seen a calculus course that skipped those (granted, it's been more than a decade since I looked at calculus courses). They certainly seem to still be within the remit of the FE - ECE exam.
It's more an issue of what the students are retaining from calculus.
I don't think this is a new problem. Its largely a problem of the way its taught, particularly at the high-school level where professional teachers and politicians choose what is important in the curriculum (and yes, I know a lot of engineering programs require an "engineering calculus" taught at the college). Nothing has changed since Feynman's little rant, if anything looking at my kids schooling its worse than ~30 years ago when I was in HS. Although, i'm told I can't compare my HS education because I went to one of the best HS's for math/science in the country (one of first of what are now called "STEM magnets" long before that term was even coined) at the time.
But even so, my calc for engineering classes suffered from basically the same problems of focus. It was frequently hard to tell what was really important vs what was an interesting sidetrack I would never use again. Which is why I distinctly remember a number of my engineering classes having week long math refreshers as the first week of class for things like Laplace transforms/etc or a math refresher TA lead study groups the prof would strongly suggest people attend at the beginning if they couldn't solve some basic math problems written on the board the first day of class. Where I went, the first week or so was add/drop and many of the professors would toss in a "prereq" quiz to scare people into dropping who weren't strong enough in the prereqs as another method. And being an engineering class grades weren't "given". For some classes it was well known that there were going to be a lot of C's and D's because the prof wasn't going to dumb down his material if you couldn't keep up because they were believers in normal distributions (and I remember a physics professor who would show the distribution for tests/etc) and that A's really meant you were excelling.
But even so, my calc for engineering classes suffered from basically the same problems of focus. It was frequently hard to tell what was really important vs what was an interesting sidetrack I would never use again. Which is why I distinctly remember a number of my engineering classes having week long math refreshers as the first week of class for things like Laplace transforms/etc or a math refresher TA lead study groups the prof would strongly suggest people attend at the beginning if they couldn't solve some basic math problems written on the board the first day of class. Where I went, the first week or so was add/drop and many of the professors would toss in a "prereq" quiz to scare people into dropping who weren't strong enough in the prereqs as another method. And being an engineering class grades weren't "given". For some classes it was well known that there were going to be a lot of C's and D's because the prof wasn't going to dumb down his material if you couldn't keep up because they were believers in normal distributions (and I remember a physics professor who would show the distribution for tests/etc) and that A's really meant you were excelling.
Unfortunately we are told that we have to make engineering “not scary” and “fun” so we get more engineering majors and this is explicitly not to be a weedout class. I do try to work them hard in the recitations to compensate.
And on cue I get an email saying students have been complaining my class is "too technical" and "doesn't have enough examples"
The HN crowd is primarily software engineers and their curriculum probably doesn't cover this. But a EE can specialize in this field with courses in radar systems, signal processing, control theory, etc.
I talked to a guy a few weeks ago who worked for a company that developed a guidance system before GPS that used stars like a sextant to navigate.
Pretty crazy to think about.
Pretty crazy to think about.
Something in that vein that has always amazed me, even though its performance in the field left something to be desired, is the Norden bombsight [0].
"The Norden [used] an analog computer that continuously recalculated the bomb's impact point based on changing flight conditions, and an autopilot that reacted quickly and accurately to changes in the wind or other effects."
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight
"The Norden [used] an analog computer that continuously recalculated the bomb's impact point based on changing flight conditions, and an autopilot that reacted quickly and accurately to changes in the wind or other effects."
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight
Spacecraft often use stars to orient themselves. The Voyager spacecraft have star trackers to keep the antenna pointing at Earth. They look for the Canopus star.
Don't they need more than 1 star to get an orientation? I mean other than brightness 1 star doesn't give you a lot of information?
This is still important, e.g. the Navy teaches celestial navigation in case GPS is disrupted.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3865/this-is-likely-wh...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3865/this-is-likely-wh...
It is also common in shiprepair to use the stars for aligning equipment with a theodolite like device.
GPS and celnav (and other forms of navigation, radio or otherwise) are really not so different when you get down to fundamentals. At their core they are all about locating the intersection of multiple lines, circles, or spheres of position, depending on how many dimensions you're working with. The major differences are in how you come up with the LOPs.
The odd man out, if you will, is inertial nav, which has more in common with dead reckoning.
The odd man out, if you will, is inertial nav, which has more in common with dead reckoning.
Star trackers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_tracker
Ironically, the last one I touched was a piece of donated Russian equipment, intended for spacecraft use, with no manual.
Ironically, the last one I touched was a piece of donated Russian equipment, intended for spacecraft use, with no manual.
I'm guessing all the engineers you know are web software pukes. There are loads of people who could build these today.
Oh, I'm pretty sure the stuff we "web software pukes" have to work with would drive all those old-timer Real Engineers crazy in its own way. It's a bit like how a middle school teacher doesn't necessarily have an easier job than a prestigious professor.
Preface: I used to work in embedded control systems, now I shovel ads for a living.
nah fam, we've got it so much easier. You should kick up your feet and enjoy it, or you'll drive yourself crazy.
nah fam, we've got it so much easier. You should kick up your feet and enjoy it, or you'll drive yourself crazy.
Yeah digging through 2000 page reference manuals and looking for 1 bit differences with nothing other than a serial port/memory debugger is a lot harder than putting up a web page. Now backend stuff at scale is similar complexity. I still do embedded, but I also help/design on the web front ends for said devices :)
That's true. (Although what's with "old-timer"? Most of the mech/aero/etc. engineers I know are under 35.) I'm sort of the bridge between the software and hardware folks where I work, and nobody understands what anyone else does. Which is fine - that's what specialization is. The difference I find is that most hardware folks are at least aware of that, while almost all programmers I've met outside of aerospace don't even know the basic engineering curriculum exists (as exemplified by the comment that started this thread).
Instead people like me make "spatial computing" led hula hoops and other harmless stuff like that... And those EEG cat ears!
The world would be much better off with more LED hula hoops and fewer guided missiles.
It's funny because we were brainstorming on the hoop the other night and it hit me that this was the killer app for a "cheap and cheerful" inertial navigation system.
The Trident 2 submarine missile has a gyroscope in it that costs almost as much as the nuclear warhead because it is so resistant to drift that it can be spun up and locked on in port and maintain its position when the submarine is at sea.
If you tried INS with a smart phone or wiimote the errors in velocity estimation will build up quickly and you'll get terrible drift.
In the case of the spatial computing hoop though you know the hoop never gets far away from the user so you can damp the D.C. component of the velocity, work in coordinates relative the user's center of gravity and never notice any drift in the x or y coordinates. (I don't like damping the vertical so much but I think I can live with it.)
The Trident 2 submarine missile has a gyroscope in it that costs almost as much as the nuclear warhead because it is so resistant to drift that it can be spun up and locked on in port and maintain its position when the submarine is at sea.
If you tried INS with a smart phone or wiimote the errors in velocity estimation will build up quickly and you'll get terrible drift.
In the case of the spatial computing hoop though you know the hoop never gets far away from the user so you can damp the D.C. component of the velocity, work in coordinates relative the user's center of gravity and never notice any drift in the x or y coordinates. (I don't like damping the vertical so much but I think I can live with it.)
You may be exaggerating but there is some truth in it, and it applies to many areas of science. The growing specialization means your knowledge is deeper but lest vast. For many classes of problems you just use a pre-built solution as this is the easiest and most common way. But rest assured, the people who work on defense system know very well what they are doing.
Are these engineers paid well compared to standard web stack engineers now?
No, they might make half of what a web developer does.
On average it's not that much different, but the distributions (in both cases) are not normal.
Heat seeking missiles started development in 1940s. In the US, they began as an unfunded rogue project. The infrared guidance system was simple and very successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder
One thing a lot of people forget because war movies don't show them, is that by the end of the war allied and German aircraft were absolutely loaded with electronics.
The story of Radar on the ground is well known, but the story of systems like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2S_(radar) (so named apparently because it was a smell that no one had discovered before) is not so well known.
Similarly a lot of these British efforts were more at risk to their own commanders that the Germans at the beginning, because the engineers were having to go through utterly ridiculous hoops to justify basic physics to their superiors. Sometimes their scientific superiors...
https://youtu.be/GJCF-Ufapu8 is a very very good documentary about this kind of thing. Made before the scientists were dead, so lots of gossip.
Randall and Boot should be known by more people, but magnetrons are not as awesome as the nuclear bomb.
The story of Radar on the ground is well known, but the story of systems like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2S_(radar) (so named apparently because it was a smell that no one had discovered before) is not so well known.
Similarly a lot of these British efforts were more at risk to their own commanders that the Germans at the beginning, because the engineers were having to go through utterly ridiculous hoops to justify basic physics to their superiors. Sometimes their scientific superiors...
https://youtu.be/GJCF-Ufapu8 is a very very good documentary about this kind of thing. Made before the scientists were dead, so lots of gossip.
Randall and Boot should be known by more people, but magnetrons are not as awesome as the nuclear bomb.
The proximity fuses were a marvel - tiny radars put into an antiaircraft shell. Such would never ever have occurred to me, as how could a radar system survive being fired out of a cannon? It doubled the effectiveness of flak.
Thank you for this documentary link, it’s amazing
It wasn't necessarily single engineers designing these systems in the 70s either.
Considering the lack of coordination of their ground forces and their absurd OPSEC, it might simply be communication issues. Fuel and maintenance issues are also a safe bet with Russia.
The Russian Buks also seem to be having a bad time against the Bayraktars.
The Russian Buks also seem to be having a bad time against the Bayraktars.
That UAV is a stealthy platform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2#/media/Fi...
look at the shape of the tail, that thing doesn't have a single right angle to send radio waves straight back at the radar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_TB2#/media/Fi...
look at the shape of the tail, that thing doesn't have a single right angle to send radio waves straight back at the radar.
> I wouldn't be surprised if some of the early missile hits on residential buildings were something like this that failed to lock on
That or Russian missile attacks.
That or Russian missile attacks.
Indeed, I think GP meant that it could be a (Russian) anti-radiation missile that failed to lock onto the radar signal of a Buk.
Some of the residential hits seemed to be cruise missiles that weren't aware that a building was in their path.
A case of the height map not being updated correctly in the computer's memory? The Russians seem to be sloppy all over the place, so it wouldn't surprise me.
All this lightens my mood, since it's obvious the Russians wouldn't last two months against NATO forces.
A case of the height map not being updated correctly in the computer's memory? The Russians seem to be sloppy all over the place, so it wouldn't surprise me.
All this lightens my mood, since it's obvious the Russians wouldn't last two months against NATO forces.
No forces would last two months in a nuclear war though, so it's not all that rosy.
One nuclear bomb would ruin my whole day
Don't forget about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
Not in the same class as the Buk.
The Stinger is deadly against helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in a close air support role. It also is good for sniping at aircraft that are taking off and landing.
Against high altitude bombers and fighter aircraft though it does nothing. With modern precision weapons an aircraft like the B-52 can fly high and have individual munitions be targeted with GPS or laser so it can cause a lot of hurt to ground troops and be out of reach of the Stinger.
The Stinger is deadly against helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in a close air support role. It also is good for sniping at aircraft that are taking off and landing.
Against high altitude bombers and fighter aircraft though it does nothing. With modern precision weapons an aircraft like the B-52 can fly high and have individual munitions be targeted with GPS or laser so it can cause a lot of hurt to ground troops and be out of reach of the Stinger.
The top image in that article is the first time I’ve seen a traditionally camouflaged vehicle and been quite unsure of what I was looking at.
Is there something particular about the camouflage on those buks?
Is there something particular about the camouflage on those buks?
[deleted]
I think this misses the point entirely. It's their entire strategy, or lack of strategy that is in question.
Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...are then promptly destroyed by irregular Ukrainian forces often with improvised weapons.
Seemingly trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas.
Lack of attempts to destroy strategic infrastructure at the beginning - e.g. TV/broadcast, communications, bridges, rail, etc - using cruise missiles or whatever.
Unclear objectives - are they really trying to actually take Kiev or just force Ukraine into submission?
Effective use of an air-force is pointless without dealing with the above issues and more.
Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...are then promptly destroyed by irregular Ukrainian forces often with improvised weapons.
Seemingly trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas.
Lack of attempts to destroy strategic infrastructure at the beginning - e.g. TV/broadcast, communications, bridges, rail, etc - using cruise missiles or whatever.
Unclear objectives - are they really trying to actually take Kiev or just force Ukraine into submission?
Effective use of an air-force is pointless without dealing with the above issues and more.
I agree with you.
>Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas.
This was our strategy in Iraq -- highly mobile warfare. Marines sprinting ahead in humvees without armor. it created massive confusion and misunderstanding on where our thrust was - i think it tied up enemy resources outside of Baghdad or something. But in the long run, not capturing enemies or pacifying the areas in-between caused a lot of heartburn later; let alone the looting and lawlessness from leaving power vacuums everywhere. (humanitarian fail)
Some massive differences were air superiority, night vision, and disruption of enemy coordination. They could call-in airstrikes anytime there was a threat of armor or mortar fire. Generation Kill is a really good series showing this (it seemed like madness until i watched "The Pacific").
>Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas.
This was our strategy in Iraq -- highly mobile warfare. Marines sprinting ahead in humvees without armor. it created massive confusion and misunderstanding on where our thrust was - i think it tied up enemy resources outside of Baghdad or something. But in the long run, not capturing enemies or pacifying the areas in-between caused a lot of heartburn later; let alone the looting and lawlessness from leaving power vacuums everywhere. (humanitarian fail)
Some massive differences were air superiority, night vision, and disruption of enemy coordination. They could call-in airstrikes anytime there was a threat of armor or mortar fire. Generation Kill is a really good series showing this (it seemed like madness until i watched "The Pacific").
It's not a lack of strategy, merely an expression of that a soldier's life isn't worth sh*t in Russia.
These young enlisted conscripts are nothing but cannon fodder with their superiors hoping they can get off a shot or two before they're killed.
Pilots, being officers, are another matter entirely. I remember this Kamov Ka-40 helicopter had the ability to blow off its blades to enable the pilot to bail out with an ejection seat. There's nothing remotely like it in the U.S. arsenal.
These young enlisted conscripts are nothing but cannon fodder with their superiors hoping they can get off a shot or two before they're killed.
Pilots, being officers, are another matter entirely. I remember this Kamov Ka-40 helicopter had the ability to blow off its blades to enable the pilot to bail out with an ejection seat. There's nothing remotely like it in the U.S. arsenal.
Yeah but those hundreds of paratroopers being shot down in unsupported skies are important too.
Destroying bridges, rail, etc would be a huge mistake (beside maybe those leading west to NATO), as the current logistic challenges underscore. The initial blitz did target radars and airports (strategic infrastructure) to try to get air superiority, after which many more options become available. But that didn't play out. We're seeing now a transition to siege tactics; surround and generally make life miserable.
Of course now Russia is itself under economic siege. This doesn't seem like a winning approach for Russia.
I think the reason was, we just waltz into Kyev, get greeted as saviors and liberators, maybe shoot Zelenskyy and his circle in the head by mistake, or just make them disappear, install another friendly ruler (collaborator would be more appropriate, like Kadyrov in Chechnya) and Ukraine will be part of Russia within next few years, or end up as slave without any real autonomy like Belarus.
If that's the case, industry mostly in the east would serve much better untouched, same for rest of infrastructure. Why destroy & rebuild when you get it for free and can start draining the country immediately. Bear in mind Russia has huge demographic problems just around the corner, and smart people were running away in droves long before this.
All this - truly, hardcore naive. In whole eastern Europe currently busy with refugees efforts, and whole nations would rather risk death than be once again enslaved by them, the memories are still rather fresh.
That Russia's foreign actions are (rightfully in this and many other cases) hated as much as Hitler wasn't something leadership could grok in any way. They keep peddling these bigger Russia tales while calling in 10,000 muslim killers from Chechnya on what they claim brotherly slavic nation. You can't fail more morally in the eyes of other slavs.
I can't be objective in this topic due to coming from this oppressed region, and tyrant evil persona like Putin doesn't deserve it. Yes there are many, less powerful people like him. I would love to see them be disposed of, stripped away from wealth and power for good. Till now it was a pipe dream, same as watching some narco-baron enjoying his wealth while slowly killing everybody. Now there is at least hope that things may change, and maybe even permanently, at least a bit. And hope is a powerful thing.
If that's the case, industry mostly in the east would serve much better untouched, same for rest of infrastructure. Why destroy & rebuild when you get it for free and can start draining the country immediately. Bear in mind Russia has huge demographic problems just around the corner, and smart people were running away in droves long before this.
All this - truly, hardcore naive. In whole eastern Europe currently busy with refugees efforts, and whole nations would rather risk death than be once again enslaved by them, the memories are still rather fresh.
That Russia's foreign actions are (rightfully in this and many other cases) hated as much as Hitler wasn't something leadership could grok in any way. They keep peddling these bigger Russia tales while calling in 10,000 muslim killers from Chechnya on what they claim brotherly slavic nation. You can't fail more morally in the eyes of other slavs.
I can't be objective in this topic due to coming from this oppressed region, and tyrant evil persona like Putin doesn't deserve it. Yes there are many, less powerful people like him. I would love to see them be disposed of, stripped away from wealth and power for good. Till now it was a pipe dream, same as watching some narco-baron enjoying his wealth while slowly killing everybody. Now there is at least hope that things may change, and maybe even permanently, at least a bit. And hope is a powerful thing.
> Why destroy & rebuild when you get it for free and can start draining the country immediately.
Also, assuming any of the responsible thought about this beforehand at all (which IS an assumption), they probably expected further economic sanctions of SOME sort from invading. Rebuilding costs money. Rebuilding things like high-tech fighter aircraft costs truly ridiculous amounts of money. There were plenty of reasons they would have hoped to be able to do this all on a modest budget.
Also, assuming any of the responsible thought about this beforehand at all (which IS an assumption), they probably expected further economic sanctions of SOME sort from invading. Rebuilding costs money. Rebuilding things like high-tech fighter aircraft costs truly ridiculous amounts of money. There were plenty of reasons they would have hoped to be able to do this all on a modest budget.
> There were plenty of reasons they would have hoped to be able to do this all on a modest budget.
Indeed NATO certainly expected Ukrainians to just surrender.
Which is probably why they didn't get a no-fly-zone, strategic ambiguity, or other things like that from the US and friends.
Indeed NATO certainly expected Ukrainians to just surrender.
Which is probably why they didn't get a no-fly-zone, strategic ambiguity, or other things like that from the US and friends.
That might have had more to do with the threat of nuclear war.
The west isnt going to sacrifice itself to save kyiv.
The west isnt going to sacrifice itself to save kyiv.
> That might have had more to do with the threat of nuclear war
It's not clear we would have risked nuclear war by selling discounted cruise missiles to Ukraine.
But the Ukrainians might have used them prematurely, or surrendered without a fighting chance.
Or the US could have just deployed 50k troops to Poland and said "we might interfer in Ukraine". Then Putin might never have invaded.
Instead the US said, they would not interfere.
It's not clear we would have risked nuclear war by selling discounted cruise missiles to Ukraine.
But the Ukrainians might have used them prematurely, or surrendered without a fighting chance.
Or the US could have just deployed 50k troops to Poland and said "we might interfer in Ukraine". Then Putin might never have invaded.
Instead the US said, they would not interfere.
> Indeed NATO certainly expected Ukrainians to just surrender.
NATO expected (and AFAICT, still expects) Ukraine to be defeated if Putin attacked and wasn't dissuaded by the resulting sanctions from pressing the attack. I don't think they were expected to just surrender.
NATO expected (and AFAICT, still expects) Ukraine to be defeated if Putin attacked and wasn't dissuaded by the resulting sanctions from pressing the attack. I don't think they were expected to just surrender.
There was a hue and cry about Ukrainians dipping bullets into salo but seeing as the Chechens got droned by Bayraktars it seems like the Turks don't mind whatever treatment the drones are getting.
Chechens have truly horrible reputation in east/central Europe, picture ISIS but worse. There is absolutely no sympathy to them, thanks to what they showed in Syria fighting for the same guy. I am surprised they are actually taking some of them as prisoners.
Using throwaway...
Chechens themselves had the same tragedy in Grozny. I don't believe these puppet soldiers have the sympathy of the vast majority of muslim people.
While there are many problems like treatment of african students, comments on TV channels mentioning "civilized" part of the world, and not having the public outcry for middle-eastern people(or welcoming arms for refugees), and the topic you mentioned. Anyone I talked to in Turkey supports the struggle of Ukrainian people.
Another interesting point is that Russia seems to be recruiting a lot from the Turkic people inside Russia. So Turkish drones are also hitting them. But that doesn't seem to change public opinion.
Overall, unfortunately, the Turkish people became geopolitical experts because of all the mess and tragedy around Turkey (Note to reader: Check the map if you don't know Turkey's neighbors). One visible metric is twitter conflict/OSINT account number in Turkish. Most people have a balanced view, but stopping aggression and civilian casualties comes first.
Another interesting point is that there are sanctions on some Turkish industries, based on secondary concerns and some lobbying. But, Turkey singlehandedly supported Europe's energy security/ general security(Azerbaijan, Libya, Syrian refugees), balanced Russia(Syria, Libya), supported Ukraine's defense industry long before anyone else.
I hope it stops as soon as possible.
Chechens themselves had the same tragedy in Grozny. I don't believe these puppet soldiers have the sympathy of the vast majority of muslim people.
While there are many problems like treatment of african students, comments on TV channels mentioning "civilized" part of the world, and not having the public outcry for middle-eastern people(or welcoming arms for refugees), and the topic you mentioned. Anyone I talked to in Turkey supports the struggle of Ukrainian people.
Another interesting point is that Russia seems to be recruiting a lot from the Turkic people inside Russia. So Turkish drones are also hitting them. But that doesn't seem to change public opinion.
Overall, unfortunately, the Turkish people became geopolitical experts because of all the mess and tragedy around Turkey (Note to reader: Check the map if you don't know Turkey's neighbors). One visible metric is twitter conflict/OSINT account number in Turkish. Most people have a balanced view, but stopping aggression and civilian casualties comes first.
Another interesting point is that there are sanctions on some Turkish industries, based on secondary concerns and some lobbying. But, Turkey singlehandedly supported Europe's energy security/ general security(Azerbaijan, Libya, Syrian refugees), balanced Russia(Syria, Libya), supported Ukraine's defense industry long before anyone else.
I hope it stops as soon as possible.
I would think Crimean Tatars on Ukrainian side (and Lipka Tatars if any show up from Poland) aren't too bothered about Chechen feelings.
Why would they? The Turkish economy is in shambles and this is amazing PR for their arms manufacturing. I’d imagine those drones will be sold out for years to come
> It's their entire strategy, or lack of strategy that is in question.
So, bearing mind that I'm just shitposting on the Internet and have no military expertise, I do think that they had a strategy; based on the automated release of articles 4 days after the start of the invasion which declared that Putin had provided the "final solution to the Ukrainian problem", they really expected it to be over in four days.
Bear in mind that:
1. Ukraine has different groups with different mother tongues, like Switzerland or Belgium. The east has a lot of people who grow up speaking Russian as their home language. 2. They landed paratroops at key airports across Ukraine on day 1. 3. Ukraine government has claimed they've found significant numbers of special forces disguised as Ukrainians on the first few fays. 4. The large body of conventional forces invading on day one.
I would guess - completely "guy on the Internet" mind you - that what the strategy was is that the paratroops would get a beachhead and destroy the air force, that they and the special forces would hunt down and murder or capture all the key Ukrainian millitary and government officials in the first few days.
Meanwhile the conventional forces in the east would be "greeted as liberators", to borrow an American phrase, by Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who would provide food and fuel. Reinforcements would be flown into captured airfields. Chechen terror units would be used against serious resisters.
By the fourth day, Ukrainian resistance would be a disorganised shambles of cut-off government units, show trials of any captured members of the Ukrainian government could start so they could tell a little story about how the Jewish Ukrainian president was actually a baby-eating Nazi, and Putin could laugh off any attempts to complain as meaningless.
The paratroops were captured or killed, the Ukrainian air force kept flying or escaped to friendly countries (and are now returning), the alleged special forces got nowhere near the Ukrainian government, and Russian-speaking Ukrainians have been telling Russian troops to go away. The Chechen terror units appear to have been killed en masse.
So, bearing mind that I'm just shitposting on the Internet and have no military expertise, I do think that they had a strategy; based on the automated release of articles 4 days after the start of the invasion which declared that Putin had provided the "final solution to the Ukrainian problem", they really expected it to be over in four days.
Bear in mind that:
1. Ukraine has different groups with different mother tongues, like Switzerland or Belgium. The east has a lot of people who grow up speaking Russian as their home language. 2. They landed paratroops at key airports across Ukraine on day 1. 3. Ukraine government has claimed they've found significant numbers of special forces disguised as Ukrainians on the first few fays. 4. The large body of conventional forces invading on day one.
I would guess - completely "guy on the Internet" mind you - that what the strategy was is that the paratroops would get a beachhead and destroy the air force, that they and the special forces would hunt down and murder or capture all the key Ukrainian millitary and government officials in the first few days.
Meanwhile the conventional forces in the east would be "greeted as liberators", to borrow an American phrase, by Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who would provide food and fuel. Reinforcements would be flown into captured airfields. Chechen terror units would be used against serious resisters.
By the fourth day, Ukrainian resistance would be a disorganised shambles of cut-off government units, show trials of any captured members of the Ukrainian government could start so they could tell a little story about how the Jewish Ukrainian president was actually a baby-eating Nazi, and Putin could laugh off any attempts to complain as meaningless.
The paratroops were captured or killed, the Ukrainian air force kept flying or escaped to friendly countries (and are now returning), the alleged special forces got nowhere near the Ukrainian government, and Russian-speaking Ukrainians have been telling Russian troops to go away. The Chechen terror units appear to have been killed en masse.
As another shitposter, I agree.
I think they started to believe their own lies. Like a feedback loop from Putin to below, and then the same things going up again. Putin gets advised in a world created by his own lies.
I think they started to believe their own lies. Like a feedback loop from Putin to below, and then the same things going up again. Putin gets advised in a world created by his own lies.
It's like the queen of hearts in the Tim Burton remake of Alice in Wonderland (seems unique to this particular interpretation?). Everyone in her court has some sort of exaggerated physical feature, because she requires it. They all therefore have fake noses, chins, etc. It's all this fake world where they keep sniffing eachothers farts all day saying its perfume, and somehow a constructive feedback loop forms that takes the whole thing off thr rails.
This cites but doesn't link "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force", which is a much more thorough treatment:
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar...
They list three possible explanations:
* Too few precision-guided munitions (PGMs)
* Risk of friendly fire from surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) due to poor coordination
* Lack of experienced Russian pilots
They list three possible explanations:
* Too few precision-guided munitions (PGMs)
* Risk of friendly fire from surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) due to poor coordination
* Lack of experienced Russian pilots
"Lack of experienced Russian pilot"
This one is so hard for me to imagine, given Russia's long history of aerospace pride and massive military budget. The article attributes it to limited flying time compared to US/UK pilots and unfamiliarity with their latest and most advanced jets. Truly hard to comprehend how a military like Russia's could be suffering from lack of training despite a multi-year lead-up to a massive invasion.
This one is so hard for me to imagine, given Russia's long history of aerospace pride and massive military budget. The article attributes it to limited flying time compared to US/UK pilots and unfamiliarity with their latest and most advanced jets. Truly hard to comprehend how a military like Russia's could be suffering from lack of training despite a multi-year lead-up to a massive invasion.
Its easy - imagine massive, gargantuan corruption. On all levels, including the very top and going all the way to the lowest soldier. Heck, they were selling gas to Belarus civilians from their own machines while waiting just across the border during February. And then they ran out of it in Ukraine.
Can you imagine US or western Europe soldiers doing something similar en masse?
And its not just that - heavy drinking, fuck-it attitude, and suddenly called to invade the nation who was supposed to be their closest brothers?
They are sort of potemkin village kind of army. Few exceptional units (Spetsnaz), few cool technologies ie anti aircraft missiles, literally maybe 10 new Armata tanks (they found out they can't manufacture them en masse). So you see 40-50 years old tanks which Javelin can fry easily, and even clueless civilian can fire them after 30 minutes of training. You see soldiers abandoning vehicles since they have higher survability on foot. You see tank crew coming to Ukrainian police station to ask where is gas station (I call it clever way to surrender).
I think its actually very dangerous for Russia as a state right now. Showing this much weakness might motivate some neighbors. Especially China, they could run through the country all the way to Barents sea without breaking a sweat.
Can you imagine US or western Europe soldiers doing something similar en masse?
And its not just that - heavy drinking, fuck-it attitude, and suddenly called to invade the nation who was supposed to be their closest brothers?
They are sort of potemkin village kind of army. Few exceptional units (Spetsnaz), few cool technologies ie anti aircraft missiles, literally maybe 10 new Armata tanks (they found out they can't manufacture them en masse). So you see 40-50 years old tanks which Javelin can fry easily, and even clueless civilian can fire them after 30 minutes of training. You see soldiers abandoning vehicles since they have higher survability on foot. You see tank crew coming to Ukrainian police station to ask where is gas station (I call it clever way to surrender).
I think its actually very dangerous for Russia as a state right now. Showing this much weakness might motivate some neighbors. Especially China, they could run through the country all the way to Barents sea without breaking a sweat.
>I think its actually very dangerous for Russia as a state right now. Showing this much weakness might motivate some neighbors. Especially China, they could run through the country all the way to Barents sea without breaking a sweat.
To which I say: Russia has ~half of the world's nuclear arsenal. (The US has ~half, the rest of the nuclear states are mere footnotes by # of nukes, relying on the fact that no one really needs more than about a dozen).
To which I say: Russia has ~half of the world's nuclear arsenal. (The US has ~half, the rest of the nuclear states are mere footnotes by # of nukes, relying on the fact that no one really needs more than about a dozen).
> Russia has ~half of the world's nuclear arsenal
If this is the state of their conventional military, it raises questions about the state of their nuclear deterrent.
In any case, if China wanted Siberian resources, fomenting a breakaway region would be cleaner than invading.
If this is the state of their conventional military, it raises questions about the state of their nuclear deterrent.
In any case, if China wanted Siberian resources, fomenting a breakaway region would be cleaner than invading.
>If this is the state of their conventional military, it raises questions about the state of their nuclear deterrent.
A scary fucking thought. i.e. some of them will stay in silos, but others will be partially airworthy.
>In any case, if China wanted Siberian resources, fomenting a breakaway region would be cleaner than invading.
This would result in a nuclear exchange.
A scary fucking thought. i.e. some of them will stay in silos, but others will be partially airworthy.
>In any case, if China wanted Siberian resources, fomenting a breakaway region would be cleaner than invading.
This would result in a nuclear exchange.
> This would result in a nuclear exchange
Possibly. But the exchange would occur on Russian soil. China is more than capable of covertly supporting separatists. Hell, it might not even have to. Just prime the pump and then let the West take over.
Possibly. But the exchange would occur on Russian soil. China is more than capable of covertly supporting separatists. Hell, it might not even have to. Just prime the pump and then let the West take over.
or they would just nuke chinese cities?
> Especially China, they could run through the country all the way to Barents sea without breaking a sweat.
The thing is though, is there any reason to believe the PLA would be in a much different shape? The last wars the Chinese fought in were decades ago, and the performance was pretty poor. So we don't have any real world idea of how that army would perform - it could suffer from poor morale, stupid tactics, lack of coordination, no logistics, or it could be superbly trained with great equipment.
The thing is though, is there any reason to believe the PLA would be in a much different shape? The last wars the Chinese fought in were decades ago, and the performance was pretty poor. So we don't have any real world idea of how that army would perform - it could suffer from poor morale, stupid tactics, lack of coordination, no logistics, or it could be superbly trained with great equipment.
Soldiers stealing fuel to sell is a decades old Russian soldier tradition
In some branches of psychology, they use term "apoptosis" as a metaphor for widespread self-destruction [1], because such a collapse in social teamwork appears to almost perfectly mirror programmed cell death - as if social collapse of one society to allow the takeover of another more "fit" society is built in to our inherent social or genetic code. Historically speaking, showing such weakness would lead to mass genocide, leadership takeover, cultural changes, and other unpalatable war crimes. We don't need to be brutal cavemen anymore, but feels we're enabling Russia to torture itself indefinitely while not letting it completely collapse and rebuild a more fair society, because they have nuclear weapons and it would be the incorrect opinion to acknowledge and fix Russia's failures as a state, society, culture, military, and economic structure? Why can't we read the writing on the wall and fix the world's number 1 danger - the apoptosis of Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayq2WTOIOAQ&t=2964s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayq2WTOIOAQ&t=2964s
Fix it how? Russia has been unstable for well over a century
> Its easy - imagine massive, gargantuan corruption.
Well, it's not as if the US military industrial complex has nothing of that?
I think the problem isn't corruption alone, but the combination of corruption and all the corrupt trying hard to put their own eggs elsewhere than Russia's basket. Working with a corrupt authoritarian leader can be profitable, but you really want to have a plan B for when SHtF.
US corrupt elites have the luxury problem that if their wealth and power isn't secure in the US, it probably isn't very secure anywhere else either. So they have to take just a little care not shit where they eat (too much), and maybe sponsor a few museums and stuff, robber baron style.
Well, it's not as if the US military industrial complex has nothing of that?
I think the problem isn't corruption alone, but the combination of corruption and all the corrupt trying hard to put their own eggs elsewhere than Russia's basket. Working with a corrupt authoritarian leader can be profitable, but you really want to have a plan B for when SHtF.
US corrupt elites have the luxury problem that if their wealth and power isn't secure in the US, it probably isn't very secure anywhere else either. So they have to take just a little care not shit where they eat (too much), and maybe sponsor a few museums and stuff, robber baron style.
I think you underestimate the extent of corruption in Russia. The US doesn't even come remotely close. You can look up corruption indexes, Russia is near most corrupt, US somewhere in the bottom quartile iirc. A quick example from my industry - roughly 1/3 of the ~USD $3 billion spent on the new Russian spaceport is unaccounted for (stolen). I assure you that's many orders of magnitude worse than the contracts in play at Cape Canaveral.
A good (extremely depressing) film to watch is "Leviathan" (2014).
A good (extremely depressing) film to watch is "Leviathan" (2014).
First, I was mostly thinking about historical corruption in the US, i.e. in the age of Robber Barons, which was really incredibly bad.
I agree there's probably less of the "money just unaccounted for" type of corruption in the US (though it does happen, especially in connection with wars and intelligence agencies), and certainly less petty bribes. But that may just be a symptom of more organized corruption, so that it isn't necessary to let to many lower instances have a cut. In short, there may be more legal ways to divert public trust to private gain, so that the petty sort is just pointlessly risky.
I agree there's probably less of the "money just unaccounted for" type of corruption in the US (though it does happen, especially in connection with wars and intelligence agencies), and certainly less petty bribes. But that may just be a symptom of more organized corruption, so that it isn't necessary to let to many lower instances have a cut. In short, there may be more legal ways to divert public trust to private gain, so that the petty sort is just pointlessly risky.
If you had lived in a country that is corrupt at all levels of industry, government, and business you would know that the US is practically pure as driven snow. In the US there is relatively plenty money to go around and even the poor typically live better than in a lot of countries "average standard of living) (barring the poorest 5% or so). I have lived in such a country for a few years and it. is. everywhere. -Everyone- wants a bribe or kickback.
China won’t invade anyone. They haven’t had any battles in a long time. They can just take over with soft power since Russia is in a extremely weak position in a few months.
> China won’t invade anyone
Except Hong Kong (and the "expansion" of the South China Sea).
Except Hong Kong (and the "expansion" of the South China Sea).
A policing operation in one of their “own” cities against unarmed people and dumping a bunch of land into the sea/intimidating fishermen. Like I said they don’t have any combat ready troops. It’s basically all LARPing with a big budget. Which we should all be glad about.
Russias military budget is only slightly higher than that of the UK (61.7 billion vs 59.2 billion), even though Russia has a bit more than twice the UK population.
France and Germany aren't far behind - 52.8 billion and 52.7 billion respectively. I believe Germany recently pledged to raise it's military spending to 100 billion (a lot of flashy headlines but couldn't find details), so soon it will far outspend Russia.
France and Germany aren't far behind - 52.8 billion and 52.7 billion respectively. I believe Germany recently pledged to raise it's military spending to 100 billion (a lot of flashy headlines but couldn't find details), so soon it will far outspend Russia.
>I believe Germany recently pledged to raise it's military spending to 100 billion (a lot of flashy headlines but couldn't find details), so soon it will far outspend Russia.
Not to 100 billion, by 100 billion. Euros that is.
https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/inland/innenpolitik...
Not to 100 billion, by 100 billion. Euros that is.
https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/inland/innenpolitik...
They want to do a one time invest of 100bn and raise permanently to 2% of GDP.
You cannot compare those numbers. Cost of living is very different in Germany and the UK compared to Russia. Personnel costs make up for most of the German budget and a Russian soldier earns only a fraction of a German soldier.
While that is a factor, I can also imagine that Russia has more cost due to the size of the country and the amount of hardware they have to maintain within that budget. The other countries are a lot more compact and focused, both in terms of landmass and the amount of hardware.
Just looking at the land mass is probably misleading too. Most of the population is in the western part of Russia. As soon as you get to the mountains and Siberia there is simply not much there.
Sure, but I don’t think the person you’re replying to was forgetting this point.
Germany will have greater personnel cost, yes. In other areas, Russia will have a greater cost burden. For example, they don’t share defense resources with other nations (I.e. no. NATO equivalent).
The person you’re replying to is simply stating that Germany’s higher personnel cost does not nullify the effectiveness of relative strength of the German military versus the Russians.
Germany will have greater personnel cost, yes. In other areas, Russia will have a greater cost burden. For example, they don’t share defense resources with other nations (I.e. no. NATO equivalent).
The person you’re replying to is simply stating that Germany’s higher personnel cost does not nullify the effectiveness of relative strength of the German military versus the Russians.
Ukrainians shot about 30 Russian planes, so 30 experienced Russian pilots are gone. Even if they are catapulted, they cannot return to home easily, while Ukrainians can catapult, return to base, and then use a next available plane same day. It's like battle of Britain, when British pilots did the same trick against Nazi pilots.
Ukrainians shot about 30 Russian planes, so 30 experienced Russian pilots are gone
This is exactly the metric. Unlike their other assets, planes are expensive to replace and pilots take a long time to train.
Russia needs to maintain their air assets in order to defend themselves in case they get challenged that way. And they have tons of warm bodies and old hardware to throw at the situation.
Another perspective is that Russian air assets are very vulnerable to MANPADS style air-defense systems. Ukraine has received a ton of these systems from the west and are able to engage targets up to about 3 miles out. They're also vulnerable to the S300 systems the Ukrainians inherited, although its not clear how many of those remain.
This is exactly the metric. Unlike their other assets, planes are expensive to replace and pilots take a long time to train.
Russia needs to maintain their air assets in order to defend themselves in case they get challenged that way. And they have tons of warm bodies and old hardware to throw at the situation.
Another perspective is that Russian air assets are very vulnerable to MANPADS style air-defense systems. Ukraine has received a ton of these systems from the west and are able to engage targets up to about 3 miles out. They're also vulnerable to the S300 systems the Ukrainians inherited, although its not clear how many of those remain.
I disagree, they have used their airforce extensively in Syria with precision guided bombs, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't help the pilots gain a lot of experience too. All those reasons might have explained a lower intensity air presence but not the outright absence of russian planes. I think it's mostly due to public perception because air strikes, no matter how precise, cause a lot of collateral damage, especially when used in cities.
Outside of cities, where alternatives to air strikes are viable, you can still see a lot of russian helicopter and artillery action.
Outside of cities, where alternatives to air strikes are viable, you can still see a lot of russian helicopter and artillery action.
I think the area they lack experience is closed air support. Ground troops can't direct air support on enemy targets consistently and accurately. Not that many countries can do that effectively.
This is what the article argues. That it is possible that they used up most of their precision guided bombs in Syria and are mostly left with unguided munitions.
I'm not sure I'd agree because they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either. And we know they have a lot, lot more of those even if we just count Soviet stock. To me that indicates that there is something more to it than just lacking the munition itself.
> they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either
Those need targeting. And the article mentions a lack of targeting pods. (UkrAF is largely functional because the initial volley missed many air fields, planes and radar systems.)
This increasingly looks like the Russian military procured shiny, expensive kit from cronies and then neglected to equip them.
Those need targeting. And the article mentions a lack of targeting pods. (UkrAF is largely functional because the initial volley missed many air fields, planes and radar systems.)
This increasingly looks like the Russian military procured shiny, expensive kit from cronies and then neglected to equip them.
Syrian enemies did not have nearly the level of anti-aircraft (and more incoming from NATO countries) that Ukrainians have. I think they are just trying to keep irreplaceable fighters and bombers intact at the cost of ground forces. Russia know that in a war of attrition they can outlast Ukraine although it will cost them more than they thought now. I think they gambled based on what happened in Crimea and the "contested" regions of Ukraine.
Could it be they are saving their airforce in case of western involvement?
Many conflicting viewpoints here. Sure, there's been less of a push from Russia than everyone expected, but it's not like Ukraine controls the sky either.
Are Ukranians really still flying? If that was the case, the mentioned 40-mile convoy heading to Kiev would have been hit by now, no? Russians driving vehicles bumper to bumper shows VERY strong confidence that they own the sky, so things might not be as rosy for Ukraine as they seem.
Are Ukranians really still flying? If that was the case, the mentioned 40-mile convoy heading to Kiev would have been hit by now, no? Russians driving vehicles bumper to bumper shows VERY strong confidence that they own the sky, so things might not be as rosy for Ukraine as they seem.
> If that was the case, the mentioned 40-mile convoy heading to Kiev would have been hit by now, no?
Not necessarily. That's likely to be a target-rich, but well-defended area. As long as it's not moving - especially given rumors of fuel troubles - there may be better things for the Ukranian air force to tackle, like helicopters moving troops around.
Not necessarily. That's likely to be a target-rich, but well-defended area. As long as it's not moving - especially given rumors of fuel troubles - there may be better things for the Ukranian air force to tackle, like helicopters moving troops around.
No, this convoy would be an obvious strafing target. I'm disappointed that the Ukrainians didn't even attempt it. Or we haven't heard about it.
Strafing implies—again—flying low over a potentially heavily-defended target. If even a handful of ground troops in that convoy are carrying MANPADs it would be suicide, and that's to say nothing of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns that are almost certainly accompanying the convoy.
Again, there are probably far more urgent targets for the Ukrainian Air Force than a convoy that hasn't moved in days.
Again, there are probably far more urgent targets for the Ukrainian Air Force than a convoy that hasn't moved in days.
> No, this convoy would be an obvious strafing target. I'm disappointed that the Ukrainians didn't even attempt it. Or we haven't heard about it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the convoy had the equivalent of a 1000 US Stinger AA missiles or more. It's not with strafing if there's too high a chance the jet would get shot down.
As a layman, I'm guessing the only things worth the risk might be some operation that could potentially trap the convoy (e.g. between two knocked-out bridges).
I wouldn't be surprised if the convoy had the equivalent of a 1000 US Stinger AA missiles or more. It's not with strafing if there's too high a chance the jet would get shot down.
As a layman, I'm guessing the only things worth the risk might be some operation that could potentially trap the convoy (e.g. between two knocked-out bridges).
We don't know the whole story, but Russia could have air superiority over the convoy.
They hit the fuel train that was supplying the convoy with a drone strike and released the footage. The convoy has been stalled for days now, both due to fighting and due to supply chain issues (such as having their supply train blow up).
Claiming there's a "the" convoy and Ukraine has either not ever struck it, or has only struck it once, seems to assume a satellite picture you saw from 2 days ago is the only thing that's happening in the country. A lot has gone down since then they're not going to tell you about.
Isn't the supply train in the south in Crimea and the convoy in the north near Kiev?
There would be separate supply lines for each thrust.
Irrelevant on the question of Russian air superiority over Ukraine. The Ukrainian air force is clearly still operating.
Ukraine really doesn't want war, the odds are stacked against them and without significant outside ground troops they'll be devastated even if Russia is as incompetent as they currently appear.
Killing aggressors is often used as an excuse for the aggressors to be more aggressive and Russia's army is large enough to replace that convoy a few times over without much of a sweat. Violence also helps back the idea that Russia needs to be there to stop the violent nazis that state media has painted Ukrainians to be (goes without saying, this is completely fabricated).
It's also a morale killer; a lot of Russians have Ukrainian relatives. A lot of the captured combatants are very young and seem confused about why they're there (yes, could just be propaganda).
Ukraine just wants them to go home. The Ukrainian people don't really have a conflict with the Russian people.
Killing aggressors is often used as an excuse for the aggressors to be more aggressive and Russia's army is large enough to replace that convoy a few times over without much of a sweat. Violence also helps back the idea that Russia needs to be there to stop the violent nazis that state media has painted Ukrainians to be (goes without saying, this is completely fabricated).
It's also a morale killer; a lot of Russians have Ukrainian relatives. A lot of the captured combatants are very young and seem confused about why they're there (yes, could just be propaganda).
Ukraine just wants them to go home. The Ukrainian people don't really have a conflict with the Russian people.
>Violence also helps back the idea that Russia needs to be there to stop the violent nazis that state media has painted Ukrainians to be (goes without saying, this is completely fabricated).
It definitely isn't "completely fabricated":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
The real problem is, who gives a shit if a small unit in the Ukrainian National Guard is made up of far right extremists? It's a purely internal matter for the Ukrainians to deal with however they see fit, and provides zero justification for Russia's invasion.
But by lying and claiming it's a lie you're going to make anyone who looks into the truth behind the matter more likely to become sympathetic to the Russian version of events.
It definitely isn't "completely fabricated":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
The real problem is, who gives a shit if a small unit in the Ukrainian National Guard is made up of far right extremists? It's a purely internal matter for the Ukrainians to deal with however they see fit, and provides zero justification for Russia's invasion.
But by lying and claiming it's a lie you're going to make anyone who looks into the truth behind the matter more likely to become sympathetic to the Russian version of events.
Could you not imagine the Proud Boys being allowed to serve as a unit if Canada seized Montana and Idaho, and the national guard needed resources? (With the assumption that the US had a GDP equivalent to Ukraine's.)
Keep in mind Ukraine is a very poor country being attacked by a much larger, richer, and more powerful country. This would be more comparable to Mexico deputizing the cartels if the US decided to invade.
i think you mean the cartels would deputize the Mexican government if the US decided to invade
Honestly I'd prefer to send them in first.
No, I cannot
Sounds like a lack of imagination, honestly. Per your sibling comment Ukraine needs all the resources it can get
For some reason, I feel like assistance in the effort from nazis would actually be a net harm to the cause.
If you have a limited headcount, a country invading you, and a violent bunch of nationalists who want to fight the invaders, you're going to turn them down?
Also, consider: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-stops-short-bannin...
And: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-january-6-military...
Also, consider: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-stops-short-bannin...
And: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-january-6-military...
I can't help but think Putin's guise of "denazifying Ukraine" was a poorly understood attempt to gain some favor with those in Western societies that see themselves as fighting fascism and right-wing extremism.
As a westerner, I've definitely noticed my more left leaning friends agree with actions that seemingly contradict classical liberal ideals (free speech, free association) as long as such actions seem to be in service of fighting fascism and misinformation. Perhaps some propaganda strategists assumed that 'fighting nazis' was an acceptable parallel to how the United States claims it is defending freedom/democracy whenever it intervenes in some other country. It obviously didn't work.
As a westerner, I've definitely noticed my more left leaning friends agree with actions that seemingly contradict classical liberal ideals (free speech, free association) as long as such actions seem to be in service of fighting fascism and misinformation. Perhaps some propaganda strategists assumed that 'fighting nazis' was an acceptable parallel to how the United States claims it is defending freedom/democracy whenever it intervenes in some other country. It obviously didn't work.
> I can't help but think Putin's guise of "denazifying Ukraine" was a poorly understood attempt to gain some favor with those in Western societies that see themselves as fighting fascism and right-wing extremism.
> As a westerner, I've definitely noticed my more left leaning friends agree with actions that seemingly contradict classical liberal ideals (free speech, free association) as long as such actions seem to be in service of fighting fascism...
Nah, this is targeted at Russians. I think that as a westerner you underestimate the power of the myth of Russians saving the world from fascism. This is the very core of their identity. You can find some interesting details here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497306746330697738.html
Personal experience: I grew up during cold war in one of east-european satelites of the Soviet union. That myth was probably weaker here than in the Soviet union itself, yet it felt ever-present; kind of representation of the mythical struggle of good versus evil. When me and my friends were playing "soldiers" as kids, we were always Russians shooting at fascists. And I remember loving books for kids where some Russian paratrooper befriends local boy and together fight fascism... This was during the latest stages of the communist regime, when almost everyone here hated communists and especially Russians. The idealized memory of their heroic struggle against fascism was the only positive thing that survived in the minds of people.
Obviously, no mention of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact etc. in history books.
> As a westerner, I've definitely noticed my more left leaning friends agree with actions that seemingly contradict classical liberal ideals (free speech, free association) as long as such actions seem to be in service of fighting fascism...
Nah, this is targeted at Russians. I think that as a westerner you underestimate the power of the myth of Russians saving the world from fascism. This is the very core of their identity. You can find some interesting details here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497306746330697738.html
Personal experience: I grew up during cold war in one of east-european satelites of the Soviet union. That myth was probably weaker here than in the Soviet union itself, yet it felt ever-present; kind of representation of the mythical struggle of good versus evil. When me and my friends were playing "soldiers" as kids, we were always Russians shooting at fascists. And I remember loving books for kids where some Russian paratrooper befriends local boy and together fight fascism... This was during the latest stages of the communist regime, when almost everyone here hated communists and especially Russians. The idealized memory of their heroic struggle against fascism was the only positive thing that survived in the minds of people.
Obviously, no mention of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact etc. in history books.
Second time in fifteen minutes I happen to come across you serving up weird apalogetic interpretations of dictators and dictator-wannabes. (First time here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456634 )
Twice is coincidence...
Twice is coincidence...
Russians don't know what Nazis are. They just know some people called Nazis attacked them in WW2, so denazifying = stopping enemies of Russia.
It isn't talking about the Azov battalion or anything; that's an uncalled-for steelmanning because everyone is free associating things they read about in the news.
It isn't talking about the Azov battalion or anything; that's an uncalled-for steelmanning because everyone is free associating things they read about in the news.
Russians know. As do Ukrainians.
My granma told me what was happening in Khmelnik (West Ukraine) at times of German occupation.
50% of the city was Jewish. And almost zero left in first few months. And that was done primarily by locals from UPA - not Germans. You can hide from a German but cannot hide from your neighbor.
UPA and Stepan Bandera[1] is a hero of Ukraine now - it is a street in Kiev named after him. Despite the fact that Poland and Russia condemn him as a war criminal - for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.
And now Ukrainian refugees are coming to Poland... That will not be that easy ... Liberal values are quite thin as practice shows.
I am quite surprised that nice Jew guy mr. Zelensky didn't do anything about it. Probably because he is not who rule there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
My granma told me what was happening in Khmelnik (West Ukraine) at times of German occupation.
50% of the city was Jewish. And almost zero left in first few months. And that was done primarily by locals from UPA - not Germans. You can hide from a German but cannot hide from your neighbor.
UPA and Stepan Bandera[1] is a hero of Ukraine now - it is a street in Kiev named after him. Despite the fact that Poland and Russia condemn him as a war criminal - for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.
And now Ukrainian refugees are coming to Poland... That will not be that easy ... Liberal values are quite thin as practice shows.
I am quite surprised that nice Jew guy mr. Zelensky didn't do anything about it. Probably because he is not who rule there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
Fighting nazis/nazism is a 80 year old commie propaganda meme. They used it to brainwash us before 1990 in my country as well. I think it strikes a chord with most of the former residents of the USSR.
What I'm wondering about here is that this seems to have started out relatively detached from the state in 2014 and became more integrated later on. Most sources and events in the article are from the 2014-2015 period. Perhaps they have been kept more in check as they were integrated?
the claim that russia needs to invade ukraine to stop nazis is completely fabricated, the claim isn’t “nazis exist”
Please actually read my post, since that's not my claim
Russia's claim is that they must liberate Ukraine because its government is being run by nazis that are executing Russians. That claim is entirely false. Maybe my fault for saying "Ukrainians" instead of "the Ukrainian government" but that was my point. Anything outside of that is needlessly pedantic and creates no interesting dialogue.
I mean, if Russia wants to deNazify, they can start at home first.
https://twitter.com/Kyruer/status/1370361298135965702
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group
https://twitter.com/Kyruer/status/1370361298135965702
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group
> It definitely isn't "completely fabricated":
It would be exactly the same as calling all Americans Nazi's during the reign of Trump. There is no foundation in fact all American's are but there are small groups he as the President supported who were Nazi's. This is a plain lie to serve their propaganda.
It would be exactly the same as calling all Americans Nazi's during the reign of Trump. There is no foundation in fact all American's are but there are small groups he as the President supported who were Nazi's. This is a plain lie to serve their propaganda.
No, the azov battalion is much more integrated into the ukrainian army than anything comparable during trump's presidency. This is from the official Ukrainian national guard twitter, where they seem proud of the azov batallion dipping munition in pork lard before fighting Muslim chechens:
https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497
That does not justify any invasion, but there's also no need to go on the other extreme and turn into azov apologia.
https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497
That does not justify any invasion, but there's also no need to go on the other extreme and turn into azov apologia.
It'd be more like if the US were fighting a civil war and substantial fighters on the government side were part of neo-Nazi paramilitaries that had swastikas as their flag.
Oh and also if the US government started banning other languages then english.
None of this justifies Russian imperialism, but I think we get too caught up in war and can often brush the crimes of the side we agree with under the rug.
Oh and also if the US government started banning other languages then english.
None of this justifies Russian imperialism, but I think we get too caught up in war and can often brush the crimes of the side we agree with under the rug.
>It would be exactly the same as calling all Americans Nazi's during the reign of Trump.
Were any far-right groups formally integrated into the US military, federal law enforcement, or anything else like that during Trump's presidency? That's the difference here, the Azov battalion was a private militia that was made an actual part of the Ukrainian military.
Were any far-right groups formally integrated into the US military, federal law enforcement, or anything else like that during Trump's presidency? That's the difference here, the Azov battalion was a private militia that was made an actual part of the Ukrainian military.
Ukraine has not such thing as private militia. Azov regiment was made by volunteers: football fans. See them there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvzxM_DbQhw .
Hah, football fans and neonazism, name a more iconic duo.
Yeah, they are holding «Putin - khujlo!»[0] banner. They are definitely anti-Russian. All anti-Russians are Nazi by Russian definition.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin_khuylo!
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin_khuylo!
I'm sure you could make a link if you really wanted (I don't believe it and hate your political party likes to call everyone fascist / racist similarly to Russia.
But there were many articles I remember about white power type of people biggest terror threat by FBI, of course half the population who believed everyone's fascist (see, these locals agree with us!). I'm certain radicals often go to military, especially right wing, so there's the military connection. I'm also certain the whole police force was white supremacist organization and fascist (you might use something interesting like drug addict guns running the streets killing civilians without hesitation like Putin).
So all in all its up to you interpret the world and how widespread something really is and if it deserves an action or pretext for war. Muellers report revealed GRU was running BLM social media and guns rights activists at the same time.
Sincerely from the bottom of my heart I suggest every American to de-escalate because most certainly its not fun to live in a society when things have to be solved by violence between countrymen and Putin has done cleanical job.
Sincerely from the bottom of my heart I suggest every American to de-escalate because most certainly its not fun to live in a society when things have to be solved by violence between countrymen and Putin has done cleanical job.
Right, I'd love to hear a good explanation for why they're not attacking a 40-mile long convoy on a road. At least bomb the front of the convoy, wtf.
That Russia sent in such a rich sitting duck target and it's not being attacked suggests they have air superiority and we're getting bad information.
That Russia sent in such a rich sitting duck target and it's not being attacked suggests they have air superiority and we're getting bad information.
I can’t decide if the people here in the comments spend too much time watching action movies or too little.
Obviously the first thing that pops to mind when you hear “air superiority” and “40 mile convoy of enemy tanks” is “bomb that convoy to dust”. The second thing that should pop is “ambush”. Losing 5 aircraft to surface to air missiles to take out 5 tanks would be a poor tradeoff.
Doubtless bombing the convoy is something Ukraine has considered. Also doubtless they are aware that the convoy isn’t guaranteed to be a parade of sitting ducks.
Obviously the first thing that pops to mind when you hear “air superiority” and “40 mile convoy of enemy tanks” is “bomb that convoy to dust”. The second thing that should pop is “ambush”. Losing 5 aircraft to surface to air missiles to take out 5 tanks would be a poor tradeoff.
Doubtless bombing the convoy is something Ukraine has considered. Also doubtless they are aware that the convoy isn’t guaranteed to be a parade of sitting ducks.
There is something weird going on with that convoy. It's not moving forward for some reason (claims of fuel shortages)
Maybe they didn't bomb the convoy, but just the supply, like they did before.
Once those soldiers go searching for food, the Ukrainians can take some extra tanks for their army ;).
Maybe they didn't bomb the convoy, but just the supply, like they did before.
Once those soldiers go searching for food, the Ukrainians can take some extra tanks for their army ;).
i'm no military tactician but if it's not getting closer and not able to hit you then it's not a threat. they probably have bigger problems than a stalled convoy.
If there's one thing Russia is very good at, it's surface to air defense.
They've screwed so much of this operation thus far, but I bet you that good chunks of that column consist of Tunguskas and Tors, and the Ukrainians know it.
They've screwed so much of this operation thus far, but I bet you that good chunks of that column consist of Tunguskas and Tors, and the Ukrainians know it.
I see no Tunguska in remains of convoy: https://www.facebook.com/serega.misura/posts/702155627791475... .
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
Maybe not, but there are definitely those in service, one damaged and abandoned, one disabled and one captured.
Maybe not, but there are definitely those in service, one damaged and abandoned, one disabled and one captured.
"Earlier today, the enemy occupying force in Ukraine mercilessly attacked our peacekeeping force as it peacefully advanced towards Kyiv with humanitarian aid.
President Putin has authorized the use of overwhelming force to evict the occupiers and avenge our fallen servicemen. President-in-Exile <insert expendable criminal> leads the official people's government from Belarus and blah...blah..."
There is nothing at all that has stopped the military from attacking such an obvious target, but it would hurt Ukraine's plea as a victim seeking peace from the RUS citizens and provide truthiness to Putin's internal propaganda.
Better to let this encirclement occur, the thaw hits, RUS armor stuck with harrassed supply lines and the hell of urban combat against a determined populace. Meanwhile, your western flank is feeding advanced weaponry into the remaining UKR units and your economy has imploded.
Take all the corruption, assumptions RUS had, etc. and it all still looks like a scenario from some HS history class to help teach about Caesar or Stalingrad.
President Putin has authorized the use of overwhelming force to evict the occupiers and avenge our fallen servicemen. President-in-Exile <insert expendable criminal> leads the official people's government from Belarus and blah...blah..."
There is nothing at all that has stopped the military from attacking such an obvious target, but it would hurt Ukraine's plea as a victim seeking peace from the RUS citizens and provide truthiness to Putin's internal propaganda.
Better to let this encirclement occur, the thaw hits, RUS armor stuck with harrassed supply lines and the hell of urban combat against a determined populace. Meanwhile, your western flank is feeding advanced weaponry into the remaining UKR units and your economy has imploded.
Take all the corruption, assumptions RUS had, etc. and it all still looks like a scenario from some HS history class to help teach about Caesar or Stalingrad.
[deleted]
Driving bumper to bumper is literally to stay within their air defense missles moving with it.
It's a sign of weakness, not strength.
It's a sign of weakness, not strength.
I doubt the Ukrainians are still flying much.
That was my thought too. They have the luxury if just sitting there waiting safely for the right time while the capital self implodes. Western press talks a lot about it, meanwhile in the South the war is going badly.
Sources? I'm trying to diversify media and would love anything that doesn't filter through a pro- or anti-Russia lens. So far Al Jazeera is the best I've found.
I'll second Al Jazeera. I've been looking at various news sources trying to find unbiased up to date info and they are the best I've found so far. The daily live blogs are great when I have the time to follow them.
https://t.me/s/MedvedevVesti https://t.me/s/epoddubny https://t.me/s/sashakots have propaganda and opinion but some worth reading. You'll have to get browser to auto translate.
Well it's not going badly, it's expected that Russia would win because of how much bigger they are. It's more that it's going badly for Russia in the north and expectedly in the south.
Of course, being able to capture land doesn't mean they can occupy it.
Of course, being able to capture land doesn't mean they can occupy it.
A foreign affairs article had this to say before the conflict began:
>Airstrikes would not go entirely uncontested. Russia’s air force lacks experience in suppressing or destroying enemy air defenses, and it rarely uses missiles that are designed to destroy radar. As a result, Ukraine’s meager air defenses could still pose a challenge. But Ukrainian air defenses are in short supply, and they would be unlikely to provide effective cover for most of the country’s ground troops. They would be quickly overwhelmed.
>The opening air campaign would probably be short. Unlike Western militaries, which concentrate firepower in their air forces, Russia puts the bulk of its firepower in its ground forces, so it would quickly proceed to a ground campaign.
>Airstrikes would not go entirely uncontested. Russia’s air force lacks experience in suppressing or destroying enemy air defenses, and it rarely uses missiles that are designed to destroy radar. As a result, Ukraine’s meager air defenses could still pose a challenge. But Ukrainian air defenses are in short supply, and they would be unlikely to provide effective cover for most of the country’s ground troops. They would be quickly overwhelmed.
>The opening air campaign would probably be short. Unlike Western militaries, which concentrate firepower in their air forces, Russia puts the bulk of its firepower in its ground forces, so it would quickly proceed to a ground campaign.
I think part of why Russia looks so inept is because everyone is comparing against the US.
However, the US military has the finest logistic operations in the world.
Also, there is no substitute for fighting an actual enemy. Part of the reason the US (especial Air Force and Naval Aviation) is so good is that they have actually been fighting. From Libya(Reagan), Gulf War I, Serbia, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Libya (Obama), the US has been fighting quite a bit.
Whenever you are actually fighting an enemy, there is a learning curve. The big question is whether the sanctions and international isolation combined with the Ukrainian resistance will force Russia to back down, before they navigate that.
However, the US military has the finest logistic operations in the world.
Also, there is no substitute for fighting an actual enemy. Part of the reason the US (especial Air Force and Naval Aviation) is so good is that they have actually been fighting. From Libya(Reagan), Gulf War I, Serbia, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Libya (Obama), the US has been fighting quite a bit.
Whenever you are actually fighting an enemy, there is a learning curve. The big question is whether the sanctions and international isolation combined with the Ukrainian resistance will force Russia to back down, before they navigate that.
I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars.
I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
The reason US army is always fighting is economic. US dollar is reserve currency of the world and thus US has almost unlimited credit.
But one important element of dollar stability is that carrier group shows up on the doorstep of those getting out of line and shows them errors of their ways. Thus there is a constant need for some pretext to deploy military somewhere.
But one important element of dollar stability is that carrier group shows up on the doorstep of those getting out of line and shows them errors of their ways. Thus there is a constant need for some pretext to deploy military somewhere.
Do you mean purely for economic reasons or a whole array of reasons and the economics are a part of it?
Securing oil fields and the Persian Gulf is more than money and oil, it’s about securing trade via maritime traffic in the gulf for liberal capitalist democracies worldwide.
And keeping oil access secure is about pure security but also keeping prices low to not disrupt economies.
At least that’s how I understand it.
Securing oil fields and the Persian Gulf is more than money and oil, it’s about securing trade via maritime traffic in the gulf for liberal capitalist democracies worldwide.
And keeping oil access secure is about pure security but also keeping prices low to not disrupt economies.
At least that’s how I understand it.
I think this too. We're really the only big power in the world that has battlehardened soldiers.
In addition, how much were the Iraq and Afghanistan wars about projecting power to Iran? Look on the map and they’re being contained on both sides.
Projects the power that the military will show up.
Projects the power that the military will show up.
Russia fought a lot too, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Crimea
> I think part of why Russia looks so inept is because everyone is comparing against the US.
Yeah, we would all like the narrative to be Russian army not working.
But it's also possible that they are just working slowly. And certainly possible that Putin would rather loose conscripts than risk airplanes.
(Honestly, I just hope the madness stops before more people are hurt -- ideally with the Russians going home)
Yeah, we would all like the narrative to be Russian army not working.
But it's also possible that they are just working slowly. And certainly possible that Putin would rather loose conscripts than risk airplanes.
(Honestly, I just hope the madness stops before more people are hurt -- ideally with the Russians going home)
I can only assume they are keeping their powder dry, or working to limit casualties. I saw a video of a lady riding in a car beside a convoy, and then she threw a molotov and the driver sped off. If that were Iraq in 2003, she car probably would have been lit up.
They have been bombing cities. I don't think they are trying to limit casualties.
Without minimizing the awfulness of this invasion and the fact that it must be condemned, it is not nearly as brutal as Russian operations in Chechnya and Syria or the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq, likely because Ukranians are not nearly as much of a racial or cultural other to Russians as Chechens or Syrians. The greater ability of Ukrainians to gain coverage in both traditional and social media may also be a factor.
Thank you for articulating this better than I could.
You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city".
That said, I think much of Russia's restraint is due to their end goal. Ukraine's Russian backed president was outted in a coup back in 2014. The new pro West leadership decided to go dancing with John McCain.
This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO. I know I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland tomorrow, but the existence of NATO implies I am.
It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port.
In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy. We don't want anyone else playing in our backyard. To be clear, this doesn't justify a stronger country imposing it's will upon a weaker one.
This is worth a read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
* CBS not CNN
You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city".
That said, I think much of Russia's restraint is due to their end goal. Ukraine's Russian backed president was outted in a coup back in 2014. The new pro West leadership decided to go dancing with John McCain.
This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO. I know I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland tomorrow, but the existence of NATO implies I am.
It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port.
In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy. We don't want anyone else playing in our backyard. To be clear, this doesn't justify a stronger country imposing it's will upon a weaker one.
This is worth a read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
* CBS not CNN
> You had a CNN commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city".
CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata, actually.
> It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port.
> In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy.
Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo, and a variety of covert and sponsored-third-party actions, the US never committed it's military to an all out assault to displace the Soviet-backed regime, which still exists and is still closely associated with Russia even after the fall of the USSR, a geopolitical alignment outlasting the notional ideological one.
CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata, actually.
> It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port.
> In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy.
Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo, and a variety of covert and sponsored-third-party actions, the US never committed it's military to an all out assault to displace the Soviet-backed regime, which still exists and is still closely associated with Russia even after the fall of the USSR, a geopolitical alignment outlasting the notional ideological one.
> Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo
What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Russia's only argument is that "someday maybe, perhaps, it could possibly happen".
What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Russia's only argument is that "someday maybe, perhaps, it could possibly happen".
> What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine?
Ukraine is not the formerly-Soviet-backed and still Russia-friendly Caribbean island state being referenced in the piece you quote.
Ukraine is not the formerly-Soviet-backed and still Russia-friendly Caribbean island state being referenced in the piece you quote.
The parent comment is referring to Cuba.
Putin's big speech listed out NATO compatible airbases he objected to as being a soft prelude to expansion, and one of the first things they did was bomb those airbases. The Russian state really was serious about that.
Haiti would not count as a warm water port for this purpose, because it would not serve the Russian mainland at all. Russia has plenty of foreign "warm water" ports it can use already.
Other than the unfortunate Haitians, who have suffered enough already, it is hard to imagine why a vaguely democratic decision by Haiti to become a Russian ally would meet with more than a collective yawn unless Russia planned to station intermediate range nuclear missiles there or something. Russia has plenty of allies in the area already.
The idea that the U.S. wouldn't "let" Haiti or Cuba or Venezuela have their own foreign policy is ridiculous. It does and they do.
Other than the unfortunate Haitians, who have suffered enough already, it is hard to imagine why a vaguely democratic decision by Haiti to become a Russian ally would meet with more than a collective yawn unless Russia planned to station intermediate range nuclear missiles there or something. Russia has plenty of allies in the area already.
The idea that the U.S. wouldn't "let" Haiti or Cuba or Venezuela have their own foreign policy is ridiculous. It does and they do.
You mean the Cuba to which the US has a constant trade emabargo/blockade? The one whose leader they tried for years to kill in the most bizarre ways? Yes sure the US let's them have their own foreign policy. Have a look at what happened in Panama or Nicaragua or Guatemala when people elected leaders which had policies that the US didn't like.
Edit: Just to make it clear, I actually do not believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is due to the expansion of Nato (and even if it was it would be completely unjustified) it is due to Putin's megalomania. That doesn't mean we should forget that the US has been extremely aggressive about protecting their interests even by force and by violating international law. There is a reason why they are the country which has been involved in the most wars since WWII
Edit: Just to make it clear, I actually do not believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is due to the expansion of Nato (and even if it was it would be completely unjustified) it is due to Putin's megalomania. That doesn't mean we should forget that the US has been extremely aggressive about protecting their interests even by force and by violating international law. There is a reason why they are the country which has been involved in the most wars since WWII
Latin American has pretty much NEVER been allowed to pursue it's political destiny without the US interfering.
Does NATO membership imply that America owns the country? I haven't witnessed anything like that in any of the European NATO countries.
>Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Like I said, I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland. If individual American citizens want to a join a Polish foreign legion, that's fine. Maybe the State Department can create a list of approved foreign legions American citizen can join.
Then your free to sign up on your own accord.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Like I said, I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland. If individual American citizens want to a join a Polish foreign legion, that's fine. Maybe the State Department can create a list of approved foreign legions American citizen can join.
Then your free to sign up on your own accord.
Are you saying you would enlist if Germany, France, or the UK was invaded, but specifically Poland isn't worth enlisting for, because it's a former Warsaw Pact country?
Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO?
Poland and Hungary have done autocratic things I don't agree with, but their governments seem to come much closer to following the will of the people then they would if they were again inside Russia's sphere of influence, and I think bringing them inside NATO was good for them.
I'm not sure whether it was a good maneuver strategically, but I'm also not sure it wasn't.
Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO?
Poland and Hungary have done autocratic things I don't agree with, but their governments seem to come much closer to following the will of the people then they would if they were again inside Russia's sphere of influence, and I think bringing them inside NATO was good for them.
I'm not sure whether it was a good maneuver strategically, but I'm also not sure it wasn't.
>Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO?
I'm not enlisting for anything short of America actually getting invaded. During the Vietnam War anyone with a bit of money could get deferments. Those are what I call smart men. I feel absolutely no obligation to die in a foreign conflict.
Providing logistic and selling arms is more than fine, but getting directly involved is a completely different matter.
I'm not enlisting for anything short of America actually getting invaded. During the Vietnam War anyone with a bit of money could get deferments. Those are what I call smart men. I feel absolutely no obligation to die in a foreign conflict.
Providing logistic and selling arms is more than fine, but getting directly involved is a completely different matter.
If it becomes bad enough, there'll be a draft. But probably not since the US has plenty of soldiers without one.
Lol yes, history shows that aggressive dictators just want to conquer Poland, and if we give it to them they'll stop there.
He'd stop in East Germany though ...
Your Haiti analogy greatly oversimplifies the complexity of the situation. Europe and the West have been bending over backwards to help integrate Russia into the international economy. The entire point of those efforts were to build trade relationships and de-escalate security concerns. Russia has been taking full advantage of those economic relationships while maintaining an aggressive posture towards the buffer states. And as a result, those buffer states have been joining NATO.
The only way your hypothetical analogy would make sense is if Russia/China spent decades trying to improve economic relationships with the US, and the US took advantage of those overtures while maintaining an aggressive military posture. At that point, I think most of the world we be sympathetic with installing a pro Russia/China regime in Haiti.
The only way your hypothetical analogy would make sense is if Russia/China spent decades trying to improve economic relationships with the US, and the US took advantage of those overtures while maintaining an aggressive military posture. At that point, I think most of the world we be sympathetic with installing a pro Russia/China regime in Haiti.
"It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president."
Um... Cuba?
Um... Cuba?
> This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO.
This is really not a good take. Ukrainians didn't overthrow their government because of NATO expansion. They overthrew their government because it was a corrupt pile of shit that didn't credibly represent their interests. And make no mistake, Putin has always seen Ukraine as in integral and inseparable part of Russian culture. He was never going to allow them to govern themselves, NATO expansion or not.
This is really not a good take. Ukrainians didn't overthrow their government because of NATO expansion. They overthrew their government because it was a corrupt pile of shit that didn't credibly represent their interests. And make no mistake, Putin has always seen Ukraine as in integral and inseparable part of Russian culture. He was never going to allow them to govern themselves, NATO expansion or not.
> You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city".
Syrian cities were civilized, too.
Syrian cities were civilized, too.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his comment.
A nations per capita income has nothing to do with how it's people deserve to be treated.
A nations per capita income has nothing to do with how it's people deserve to be treated.
That is the point of the comment.
I'm not sure if the statement of "we didn't keep trying to expand NATO" is correct. Most of the expansion was a result of requests from former USSR states to join, which was then supported by the US and accepted by other member states. I don't think it's correct to we were trying, when it's more likely that former USSR states were trying to pull NATO toward them.
I also am not sure that war would be avoided if NATO didn't expand. Putin and Russia have made statements that suggest a desire to grow their influence over former USSR countries, and those countries resisted by joining NATO or ousting Russian backed leadership.
I also am not sure that war would be avoided if NATO didn't expand. Putin and Russia have made statements that suggest a desire to grow their influence over former USSR countries, and those countries resisted by joining NATO or ousting Russian backed leadership.
Germans had a large role in the Haitian port system and economy, that's why the US intervened in the first place.
McCain was giving speeches in Ukraine and Biden's son was installed on board of directors of Ukranian energy producer. Lots of USA meddling.
When was eastern Ukraine (ethnic Russians) going to be voting on leaving Ukraine?
Anyone wondering how Putin got into power may want to research how the New York bankers and Clintons tried to install Boris Berezovsky in Russia.
When was eastern Ukraine (ethnic Russians) going to be voting on leaving Ukraine?
Anyone wondering how Putin got into power may want to research how the New York bankers and Clintons tried to install Boris Berezovsky in Russia.
I agree. Condemn them for the invasion. The "collateral" damage of civilians is part of an invasion. I haven't seen any evidence of targeting civilians as a goal. The US has unfortunate civilian casualties as well during missile strikes.
This is probably the absolute only thing where I think Russia is being unfairly characterized. We'll see though as more intel comes in and if they start unloading on the cities. Possibly holding them to a high standard now, will keep them in check as they get more frustrated.
This is probably the absolute only thing where I think Russia is being unfairly characterized. We'll see though as more intel comes in and if they start unloading on the cities. Possibly holding them to a high standard now, will keep them in check as they get more frustrated.
Yes. What the USA does to other countries is atrocious. It's likely the reason the USAs damage is worst is that we have far superior equipment to do damage. It's horrible and disgusting. But what does it have to do with what is happening in the Ukraine right now?
Because when the West is doing it, no one batts an eye and then devolves into a diatribe about "Freedom" and "Democracy". There are no sanctions, there is very little overt assistance given to our enemies. But when Russia does it we start toying with the idea of nuclear war and allowing groups to go over as foreign fighters.
Yet. It's not as brutal, yet. As this supposed encircling attack of Kyiv begins and progresses, who knows what we might see.
There are always going to be civilian casualties in war, but it sure looks like they are trying to limit them. Would be worth comparing to other, similar conflicts. Surely a full scale air campaign would lead to more civilian casualties?
Russia is using thermobaric and cluster munitions in Kharkiv. I really just don't think that Russia has quite as many PGMs as we think and Russia is close enough to most of Ukraine that they can launch regular old rockets from safe territory on the ground.
Has the use of thermobarics been confirmed? I know they were spotted in the area and there was an explosion in Kharkiv, but it could have been gas pipelines that were hit, and I've also see that explaination for the explosion videos.
Tons of pictures/videos of TOS-1 system, even one abandoned on some field. Now can I safely say its from current conflict and from Ukraine? Obviously not, but I personally lean to agree.
Thermobarics are standard issue fuel/air bombs correct? I thought they were specifically designed for anti-personnel use, are they banned or somehow out of the ordinary? I don't understand why it would be notable if they were used.
I think using thermobarics on a city is potentially a serious escalation from hitting airports and other infrastructure, as they are designed to kill people, especially people in shelters.
Because of the ability to rip air out of them, and from the surrounding to sustain longer explosions that penetrate deeper in openings and tunnels. My understanding is that they have an extremely wide blast radius that will kill people taking cover compared to the structural damage they dish out.
[deleted]
Don't forget the decisions of individual soldiers here. If I were forced to drive a tank in a war I did not believe in and a babushka threw a pointless cocktail at me I would not retaliate. These individual actions in war add up.
Especially if there are good chances that the ones you have been ordered to shoot at could be relatives of you or some people close to you.
A lot of Ukrainians and Russians are connected, that's another important factor.
> it sure looks like they are trying to limit them
Just saw a video where they blew the leg off a civilian that was just standing in the road to block their advance.
Just saw a video where they blew the leg off a civilian that was just standing in the road to block their advance.
Yeah I agree with this - not sure it'll last but if you look at what the Russians did in Georgia, it's clear they're not in "maximal damage" mode yet. The longer this drags out, the worse it'll get for Ukrainian cities but that's my impression of the lack of bombardment from the skies too.
[deleted]
They used a vacuum bomb. That's not a precise missle...
with Ukraine arming anyone who wants to be armed and conscripting all males between 18 and 60 the lines between civilian and soldier are becoming blurred. I saw a video of some kids in a car driving by a tank and throwing a molotov cocktail out the window. To me, they are no longer "civilians" and a legitimate target. It's surprising they lived long long enough to upload the video to social media.
They are limiting casualities. The bombing of civilians is on purpose, but the purpose is to get negotiating leverage and break will, not to kill as many civilians as possible.
It could be the difference between individual soldiers and Russian commanders. Individual soldier is happy. He gets to back as his truck was destroyed. Missiles are targeted by more senior people.
It was an armored vehicle being pulled by what looked like a tractor. I don't think it was in any condition to fire on the car.
Those are two separate videos.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-molo...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-molo...
Look closely at 0:04 and you can see the armored vehicle under tow, though, in the molotov video.
That video player didn't work for some reason.
I thought the same thing when I saw that video - how the heck did the people in the car survive that?
One thing I don't understand is Russia's opening missile salvos, they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force. I guess you could theorize they didn't want to destroy that infrastructure in the event that the Ukrainian government rolled over, but that seems to have been a risky bet that is currently playing out.
> they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force
Keep in mind that media reports and reports from the Ukrainian military are designed to minimize losses and boost morale.
I've seen quite a few videos of Ukrainian planes destroyed on the tarmac and there isn't evidence for a significant Ukrainian air presence anymore.
Keep in mind that media reports and reports from the Ukrainian military are designed to minimize losses and boost morale.
I've seen quite a few videos of Ukrainian planes destroyed on the tarmac and there isn't evidence for a significant Ukrainian air presence anymore.
Those videos are from a boneyard, they weren't active planes.
@oryxspioenkop has the most reliable confirmed info on losses, as long as you can stand his love for Bayraktars.
@oryxspioenkop has the most reliable confirmed info on losses, as long as you can stand his love for Bayraktars.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were unscathed.
We lost over 2000 civilians in last week on Ukraine-controlled territory.
We don't need to bust moral after 8 years of war. It's not possible to bust something 8 years straight. My FB is full of «killed by Russian», «lost in fight», etc.
You spoke at behalf of Ukrainians, but you have zero information from Ukraine. If you have facts, then list them, please.
We don't need to bust moral after 8 years of war. It's not possible to bust something 8 years straight. My FB is full of «killed by Russian», «lost in fight», etc.
You spoke at behalf of Ukrainians, but you have zero information from Ukraine. If you have facts, then list them, please.
I don't think RU has that many precision guided (cruise) missiles. The tech for those, small GPS/GLONASS/TERCOM, is post Soviet. My impression is that RU military capability kinda froze after the Soviet Union collapsed, and what "modern" stuff they do have is in very limited quantity.
There was the Kalibr strike on an airbase with >40 dead, plus some missiles in other air bases.
The West should be offering ~$5 million per Russian jet that defects, along with EU citizenship.
The US should put up a billion dollars for the program to get it started. Land the jets in NATO territory.
Let's put troop loyalty to the test and see if we can't drain some of their best hardware.
We're not allowed to attack Russia directly so let's plunder them. Our leaders are not being nearly creative enough in this situation.
The US should put up a billion dollars for the program to get it started. Land the jets in NATO territory.
Let's put troop loyalty to the test and see if we can't drain some of their best hardware.
We're not allowed to attack Russia directly so let's plunder them. Our leaders are not being nearly creative enough in this situation.
The West should be offering ~$5 million per Russian jet that defects, along with EU citizenship.
Skeptical that would be effective for two reasons:
1. Pilots that have family back home probably won't be eager to take the offer
2. Russia has shown no qualms about targeted assassinations in foreign lands.
Skeptical that would be effective for two reasons:
1. Pilots that have family back home probably won't be eager to take the offer
2. Russia has shown no qualms about targeted assassinations in foreign lands.
You might be right, but here are some counterarguments:
> 1. Pilots that have family back home probably won't be eager to take the offer
Russia has not been known to do North-Korea-style family executions (so far)
> 2. Russia has shown no qualms about targeted assassinations in foreign lands.
Russia might be too weak after all this is over to still have these capabilities.
Time will tell!
> 1. Pilots that have family back home probably won't be eager to take the offer
Russia has not been known to do North-Korea-style family executions (so far)
> 2. Russia has shown no qualms about targeted assassinations in foreign lands.
Russia might be too weak after all this is over to still have these capabilities.
Time will tell!
Why not sell Ukraine some of these nice B52 planes to seek and destroy convoys on the ground ?
MIG-29s which they are already flying, not B-52s which are useless to them.
The deal fell apart, however.
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-...
The deal fell apart, however.
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-...
This is a kind of Catch 22 situation with how to deliver those MIG-29s:
If a Polish pilot flies it to Ukraine, Russia will consider that an act of war, and possibly start bombarding Poland. If Ukrainian pilot comes to Poland and takes off from a Polish airport then again: that is an act of war.
The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send them by train/truck.
If a Polish pilot flies it to Ukraine, Russia will consider that an act of war, and possibly start bombarding Poland. If Ukrainian pilot comes to Poland and takes off from a Polish airport then again: that is an act of war.
The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send them by train/truck.
> The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send them by train/truck.
Just have to tow them with horses and tractors. ;)
https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/103726
Just have to tow them with horses and tractors. ;)
https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/103726
If we can supply by road and trains without being drawn into a wider conflict, then it should be possible to send by air.
Ukraine just yesterday flew a MIG-29 back from Romania, unarmed and escorted to the border by Romania jets/from the border by armed Ukranian jets. No-one seems concerned that that's an act of war.
No one seems concerned, except the NATO Secretary General who rushed to Poland specifically to stop Polish President, Andrzej Duda from lending Polish jet fighters:
https://news.yahoo.com/no-eu-countries-aren-t-233404478.html
Also, that one jet that flew from Romania was flying BACK, because it already belonged to Ukraine, just had an emergency landing in Romania for some unknown reason: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44514/su-27-returning-...
https://news.yahoo.com/no-eu-countries-aren-t-233404478.html
Also, that one jet that flew from Romania was flying BACK, because it already belonged to Ukraine, just had an emergency landing in Romania for some unknown reason: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44514/su-27-returning-...
The argument that you are making is that "Allowing to use the military infrastructure, such as an airport is an act of war". How in the world is letting a Ukranian jet land and take off at an airport making less use of that airport, than giving Ukraine a jet and only letting it take off from the airport?
Well, we don't know the whole story, but the fact that it was Ukrainian jet, not a gift, could matter a lot. Those things aren't strict rules, it is all based on perception by both sides. Sending 70 fighters, as EU planned, or allowing them to operate freely from Polish airports would anger Russia much more. Which apparently isn't something NATO is willing to do right now.
EDIT: the fact that the jet was Ukrainian gives Romania plausible deniability - they can always say that the pilot wanted to fight, and took the jet against their will :)
EDIT: the fact that the jet was Ukrainian gives Romania plausible deniability - they can always say that the pilot wanted to fight, and took the jet against their will :)
this is the shit that will kill all of us. I feel like avoiding a larger conflict overflowing more borders is going to require perfect decision making. What you linked to is not perfect decision making.
All EU countries started supplying arms to Ukraine. If it is a plane or anti-tank missile makes no difference.
Sending supplies is just business, no different from selling food. Allowing to use the military infrastructure, such as an airport is an act of war. It might seem weird to you, but that's how Russia would paint it.
Russia does not need to paint anything. When they need any excuse they just fabricate some more lies. As we've seen many times already.
Yeah, I was under the impression pre-Ukraine that Russia was an "nth generation" fighter supplier, and therefore should have air superiority almost by default.
I was corrected that nobody seems to buy Russia's offerings, and those that were made are basically for show and not in mass production.
I also realized that air superiority, as in expensive jets attacking from distance and altitude, might not matter if the enemy has cheap effective drones.
If the drone loss rate and replacement is cheaper than the flight hours cost of the ultraexpensive fighter jet, and if they can throw 100 drones at a battlefield and the best you can do is shoot down 10 of them with your ultraexpensive fighter jets... uhoh. Even if you "own" the skies, you don't have ground-air superiority.
Yes you can bomb static targets with impunity, but your ground forces are essentially unsupported, and if the enemy is infantry with portable missiles and drones with missiles... uhoh.
I was corrected that nobody seems to buy Russia's offerings, and those that were made are basically for show and not in mass production.
I also realized that air superiority, as in expensive jets attacking from distance and altitude, might not matter if the enemy has cheap effective drones.
If the drone loss rate and replacement is cheaper than the flight hours cost of the ultraexpensive fighter jet, and if they can throw 100 drones at a battlefield and the best you can do is shoot down 10 of them with your ultraexpensive fighter jets... uhoh. Even if you "own" the skies, you don't have ground-air superiority.
Yes you can bomb static targets with impunity, but your ground forces are essentially unsupported, and if the enemy is infantry with portable missiles and drones with missiles... uhoh.
Ukraine only has about 20 drones, and they are optimized for air to surface strikes, not air-to-air combat. Drones are much cheaper than fighter jets but they're not cheap enough for Ukraine to mass-produce (or purchase) them in the thousands.
I don't think anyone who've seen Russian made Lada would dare to buy Russian made fighter jets.
By that metric everyone should be buying Japanese fighter jets. The US was making kick-ass fighter jets at what might be the nadir of the US car industry. Then again, Russian cars do indeed represent an all-time low.
I think we need to consider the possibility that much of the Russian army only existed on paper, and that the true strength was overinflated by trickling up good news only throughout all ranks of the military.[1] Readiness was overstated. Equipment was overstated. Training was for parades, not combat. Everyone in the Russian military had assumed they'd never actually fight a real war, so they could grift and sell rations on the side.
Putin didn't realize that his military was hollowed-out when he made the call to invade, and thus everyone scrambled to fill in the gaps of their units with conscripts. That's why we're seeing an unusually high number of captured Russian forces who appear to have nearly no military training or experience. We've seen bizarre tactics that make no sense - tanks being abandoned, APCs driving with no support, etc.
It stands to reason that if we're asking "Where's the Russian Air Force?", the answer is that it may never have existed in the size we thought. IMO this is a more logical answer than trying to figure out some 3D chess strategy of why Russia wouldn't their planes during the largest invasion since WWII.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat
Putin didn't realize that his military was hollowed-out when he made the call to invade, and thus everyone scrambled to fill in the gaps of their units with conscripts. That's why we're seeing an unusually high number of captured Russian forces who appear to have nearly no military training or experience. We've seen bizarre tactics that make no sense - tanks being abandoned, APCs driving with no support, etc.
It stands to reason that if we're asking "Where's the Russian Air Force?", the answer is that it may never have existed in the size we thought. IMO this is a more logical answer than trying to figure out some 3D chess strategy of why Russia wouldn't their planes during the largest invasion since WWII.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat
> the true strength was overinflated by trickling up
When I watched HBO's excellent Chernobyl that was one of the recurring themes. Everybody is lying to their superiors and nobody wants to hear bad news and they suffer because if it. I assumed that was probably exaggerated for the sake of drama but maybe it was actually understated?
When I watched HBO's excellent Chernobyl that was one of the recurring themes. Everybody is lying to their superiors and nobody wants to hear bad news and they suffer because if it. I assumed that was probably exaggerated for the sake of drama but maybe it was actually understated?
> I assumed that was probably exaggerated for the sake of drama
Communist countries were full of blatant incompetence, lying about what actually happens, mismanagement, stealing and strategic deliberate incompetence.
Just look at state of economy of communist block and why USSR failed.
Communist countries were full of blatant incompetence, lying about what actually happens, mismanagement, stealing and strategic deliberate incompetence.
Just look at state of economy of communist block and why USSR failed.
Even this recent video, which presents a bad look for their leadership, they were alright with it being public; it must be the best case, and it subtly presents a leadership structure within the Russian government that is both disorganized, and systemically fearful of Putin.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucEs0nBuowE
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucEs0nBuowE
From a formerly Communist Czechoslovakia: if telling the truth results in a punishment, everyone will learn to lie habitually.
Of course the resulting system is pretty brittle to shocks.
Of course the resulting system is pretty brittle to shocks.
I think we know the Russian air force exists from Syria.
For ground troops, you may very well be right - they have been heavily relying on private military corps for a while now.
For ground troops, you may very well be right - they have been heavily relying on private military corps for a while now.
The Russian air force "exists", in that they have planes and pilots and bombs. But in what quantities and in what condition is a huge question. Furthermore, are they as good at flying in relatively contested airspace as is implied. Russia had total air superiority in Syria, Georgia, the Donbas, and the Caucasus. Ukraine has an army that actually exists and is being armed with some pretty high tech shit from the west.
Hopefully this is true of their nuclear arsenal...
Another part of this is US intelligence sources have an incentive to overstate Russia's strength. A strong scary Russia better justifies American military spending.
Unfortunately that masks the scarier scenario of a failing state with thousands of nuclear weapons.
While both scenarios are terrifying, I don't agree that the failing state is scarier. Nuclear weapons take a lot organizational skill and competence to maintain and deploy, which gets much harder for a failing state to muster. Plus we've been through this before with the Soviet Union where a disturbing number of nukes went unaccounted for, but none managed to get deployed by terrorists.
By contrast, a functioning dictatorship means a single madman can pretty much decide to destroy humanity at any point.
By contrast, a functioning dictatorship means a single madman can pretty much decide to destroy humanity at any point.
> It stands to reason that if we're asking "Where's the Russian Air Force?", the answer is that it may never have existed in the size we thought. IMO this is a more logical answer than trying to figure out some 3D chess strategy of why Russia wouldn't their planes during the largest invasion since WWII.
It's not that hard to figure out. Putin is saving his planes for something big. Direct conflict with NATO being the most likely (and of course scariest) answer.
This does not necessarily mean that he wants or intends to fight NATO, just that he sees it as a strong enough possibility that he's willing to incur heavy losses in the short term in order to conserve his strength.
It's not that hard to figure out. Putin is saving his planes for something big. Direct conflict with NATO being the most likely (and of course scariest) answer.
This does not necessarily mean that he wants or intends to fight NATO, just that he sees it as a strong enough possibility that he's willing to incur heavy losses in the short term in order to conserve his strength.
Good (and long) analysis thread on this on twitter: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204?s...
"Why Russia will lose this war?
Much of the "realist" discourse is about accepting Putin's victory, cuz it's guaranteed. But how do we know it is?
I'll argue that analysts 1) overrate Russian army 2) underrate Ukrainian one 3) misunderstand Russian strategy & political goals" Kamil Galeev
"Why Russia will lose this war?
Much of the "realist" discourse is about accepting Putin's victory, cuz it's guaranteed. But how do we know it is?
I'll argue that analysts 1) overrate Russian army 2) underrate Ukrainian one 3) misunderstand Russian strategy & political goals" Kamil Galeev
You might be correct to some degree. I suspect though, what played an even bigger role is that Putin and many of his higher ups, really seem to have believed this would be a very easy invasion and their troops would be welcome like liberators. Just read the gloating pre-prepared "we won" article that was released accidentally [1], it really seems like they were believing their own propaganda.
[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/28/the-kremlins-pro...
[1] https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/28/the-kremlins-pro...
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
You know it IS something America would not recognize: they are trying to avoid innocent civilian casualties because long-term, that's bad for Russia who has to live next door to Ukraine for all eternity.
America has demonstrated since WW2 that anyone who's not American (and even many who are but are only the wrong side or have the wrong color - e.g. ) is 100% expendable - F- the Geneva Conventions or any other international agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
This has been true from Korea to Vietnam to any conflict in the Middle East or Latin America. Our doctrine is "kill everyone and let God or the Devil sort them out" so it's not surprising that this seems bizarre to us and/or our government.
America has demonstrated since WW2 that anyone who's not American (and even many who are but are only the wrong side or have the wrong color - e.g. ) is 100% expendable - F- the Geneva Conventions or any other international agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
This has been true from Korea to Vietnam to any conflict in the Middle East or Latin America. Our doctrine is "kill everyone and let God or the Devil sort them out" so it's not surprising that this seems bizarre to us and/or our government.
Uninformed opinion would be they are holding back until needed if things need to escalate in the Ukraine or with the west. I wouldn't assume it's some sign of weakness.
> I wouldn't assume it's some sign of weakness.
Well, given the deplorable state of their ground units, I wouldn't rule it out.
Well, given the deplorable state of their ground units, I wouldn't rule it out.
I believe they were working under the assumption it would be a walk in the park, once the central government was captured or killed.
To strengthen this assumption here's a canned article which was likely meant to be published had things gone according to plan, but pulled, since they hadn't.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
RIA is a state owned news agency.
Why precisely they thought they'd meet no serious opposition in their attempted airdrop near Kyiv is anyone's guess. Mine is that Putin started believing his own tales about Nazis taking Ukraine hostage, assuming the populace is dying to be liberated from them.
Things crumbled once this met a different reality on the ground, and now they're trying to raise the stakes, and have become desperate enough to begin indiscriminately shelling population centres, Kharkiv most notably.
To strengthen this assumption here's a canned article which was likely meant to be published had things gone according to plan, but pulled, since they hadn't.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
RIA is a state owned news agency.
Why precisely they thought they'd meet no serious opposition in their attempted airdrop near Kyiv is anyone's guess. Mine is that Putin started believing his own tales about Nazis taking Ukraine hostage, assuming the populace is dying to be liberated from them.
Things crumbled once this met a different reality on the ground, and now they're trying to raise the stakes, and have become desperate enough to begin indiscriminately shelling population centres, Kharkiv most notably.
> Why precisely they thought they'd meet no serious opposition...
Isn't that what everybody thought?
Didn't NATO also think that? Isn't that why the US and friends categorically refused boots on the ground, no-fly-zones or even just strategic ambiguity?
Or maybe, things are just slow, because they are slow..
Isn't that what everybody thought?
Didn't NATO also think that? Isn't that why the US and friends categorically refused boots on the ground, no-fly-zones or even just strategic ambiguity?
Or maybe, things are just slow, because they are slow..
What's Russian for "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators"?
Heh, that will sound familiar to many.
Funny how westerners are surprised by this. Not telling the grunts what they are going into has been Russian modus operandi since forever... Just like throwing bodies at the problem, sending conscripts from Central Asia first (throwing actual Russians into the meat grinder might prove unpopular), rampant looting (including of the most absurd stuff like toilets in Georgia 2008), etc, etc.
Somehow most of the pundits and analysts have been blindsided by this stuff, even though it's common knowledge in Eastern Europe.
Funny how westerners are surprised by this. Not telling the grunts what they are going into has been Russian modus operandi since forever... Just like throwing bodies at the problem, sending conscripts from Central Asia first (throwing actual Russians into the meat grinder might prove unpopular), rampant looting (including of the most absurd stuff like toilets in Georgia 2008), etc, etc.
Somehow most of the pundits and analysts have been blindsided by this stuff, even though it's common knowledge in Eastern Europe.
- How do people meet you at the liberated territories?
- Well. Smiles. Flowers. Tears of happiness…
I just wrote the exact same thing before seeing your comment, just not so eloquently. I think you are spot on, that really is the only "rational" explanation.
Thanks for sharing. That article is disorienting! How'd you find it?
Its existence was reported widely on major news sites, even Boing Boing!.
There's a ton of reporting right now easy to miss important while trying to drink from the firehose.
I first saw it when a friend sent me a link to this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310064117059585
There's a ton of reporting right now easy to miss important while trying to drink from the firehose.
I first saw it when a friend sent me a link to this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310064117059585
They restrict the usage of artillery and air power to avoid a high number of civilian casualties.
I think I have the answer.
2008, Georgia. Russian Air Force loses at least 9 aircraft. Georgian minuscule airforce remained grounded. The losses are considered catastrophic inside Russian military command, and overall performance of Air Force was appraised as the worst among branches of military forces.
In 2010s there's a string of assassinations happen in Ukraine and Bulgaria. Different people are targeted, from ex-military to weapon mogul Gebrev. What connects them? They all were part of the weapon sales chain that provided Georgia with anti-air defences. Bizarrely, Russian state media is openly accusing some of the victims in doing exactly this: selling anti-air weapons to Georgia.
Clearly, a vendetta is taking place. Killing those people wouldn't do anything positive for whatever future Russia was planning. And since the story starts with military campaign and ends with undercover hits, it must be Putin behind this, as he's the only person in command of both military and special forces committing the murders.
Syria. Russian Air Force enters the fray. But unlike Assad's they are flying their ground attack planes pretty high, way above range of manpads that are responsible for thinning out Syrian Air Force. Clearly, avoidance is put above target precision. Later, a single Russian aircraft is downed by Turkish defence. The relations between countries are soured, but only for a while.
What can we conclude? For whatever reason Putin hates losses in air force. Specifically, in military planes (it seems Russian helicopters aren't enjoying that privilege). I can't presume what this reason might be. But Putin's actions over the last 15 years seem to fit the narrative.
2008, Georgia. Russian Air Force loses at least 9 aircraft. Georgian minuscule airforce remained grounded. The losses are considered catastrophic inside Russian military command, and overall performance of Air Force was appraised as the worst among branches of military forces.
In 2010s there's a string of assassinations happen in Ukraine and Bulgaria. Different people are targeted, from ex-military to weapon mogul Gebrev. What connects them? They all were part of the weapon sales chain that provided Georgia with anti-air defences. Bizarrely, Russian state media is openly accusing some of the victims in doing exactly this: selling anti-air weapons to Georgia.
Clearly, a vendetta is taking place. Killing those people wouldn't do anything positive for whatever future Russia was planning. And since the story starts with military campaign and ends with undercover hits, it must be Putin behind this, as he's the only person in command of both military and special forces committing the murders.
Syria. Russian Air Force enters the fray. But unlike Assad's they are flying their ground attack planes pretty high, way above range of manpads that are responsible for thinning out Syrian Air Force. Clearly, avoidance is put above target precision. Later, a single Russian aircraft is downed by Turkish defence. The relations between countries are soured, but only for a while.
What can we conclude? For whatever reason Putin hates losses in air force. Specifically, in military planes (it seems Russian helicopters aren't enjoying that privilege). I can't presume what this reason might be. But Putin's actions over the last 15 years seem to fit the narrative.
I guess planes are expensive. Maybe, it's cheaper to use conscripts and leftover tanks from the soviet era.
I'd be worried that any un-married fighter pilots might just defect. A quick run to Poland, and you're done.
The Ukrainians borders are closed for all men in fighting age (18-60). They're forced to stay in the country.
I don't think Russia would let you take the jet with you.
I mean whatever their situation is, I'm pretty sure they still can assassinate defecting pilots. And I'm pretty sure the pilots know.
I mean whatever their situation is, I'm pretty sure they still can assassinate defecting pilots. And I'm pretty sure the pilots know.
You would think so, but perhaps not! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko
[deleted]
Isn't it only senior intelligence officers and the likes that they care to assassinate?
My best guess would be that a few things are happening:
1. Russian Military Leadership is unwilling to risk their best equipment / personnel
This is a pretty radical war in that, yes, Ukraine is overmatched in almost every way, but they also have been provided some of the most advanced and modern anti air and anti tank weaponry by NATO countries. And it may not even be clear to Russia exactly what they have been provided.
2. Dissent Among Ranks
While we probably won’t know, at least not any time soon. Some of the reported incompetence of the Russian war effort seems too great to be true. I would not be suprised if there was some intentional stalling in the hope that Putin comes to reason.
3. Morale is Low
The Russian military waited a long time at the border. Were sent in, purportedly, without really knowing why or to what end, and then asked to kill people who they see as basically their own countrymen. Hard to fight when you don’t know what for, to what end, and geez, kind of seems like we are the bad guys here.
This war is going to test even the most nationalistic of the Russian military. I don’t know how much longer this can go on without a military coup.
1. Russian Military Leadership is unwilling to risk their best equipment / personnel
This is a pretty radical war in that, yes, Ukraine is overmatched in almost every way, but they also have been provided some of the most advanced and modern anti air and anti tank weaponry by NATO countries. And it may not even be clear to Russia exactly what they have been provided.
2. Dissent Among Ranks
While we probably won’t know, at least not any time soon. Some of the reported incompetence of the Russian war effort seems too great to be true. I would not be suprised if there was some intentional stalling in the hope that Putin comes to reason.
3. Morale is Low
The Russian military waited a long time at the border. Were sent in, purportedly, without really knowing why or to what end, and then asked to kill people who they see as basically their own countrymen. Hard to fight when you don’t know what for, to what end, and geez, kind of seems like we are the bad guys here.
This war is going to test even the most nationalistic of the Russian military. I don’t know how much longer this can go on without a military coup.
I didn't even consider than generals and/or other leaders could be stalling hoping for the war to come to a close.
they are slowly ramping up, hoping the west will start to negotiate without having to bomb too much. I guess they might have to in the end
It's also possible there are new, not-yet-publicly-disclosed anti-aircraft countermeasures/weapons. So, after seeing hints of greater-than-expected losses from unknown causes, the Russians may be wary of putting more aircraft at risk until more is understood, & tactics adapt.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. The goal is not to shoot aircraft down, the goal is to prevent them from coming in the first place.
Wouldn't you want to disclose the hell out of your extremely effective anti-aircraft weapons so you don't have to use them as much? Obviously not the positioning or numbers but just that you have them...
Wouldn't you want to disclose the hell out of your extremely effective anti-aircraft weapons so you don't have to use them as much? Obviously not the positioning or numbers but just that you have them...
Not if early disclosure accelerates the development of countermeasures!
Nor if you’re worried about a wider conflict - perhaps also involving Asia – & want both maximal degradation of Russian capabilities, & “mystery” advantages for as long as possible.
Surprise is a force multiplier, but a new capability is only a surprise for a short period.
And a simplistic model assuming the Ukrainian allies are optimally pursuing “prevention” as their goal insufficient to explain all mysteries.
If the EU had been clearer about how intense sanctions would be, & how firm they considered the ‘red line’ limiting conflict to the regions Russian-allied forces already claimed, maybe the whole invasion could have been deterred!
They weren’t so clear & firm, either because they were hiding the strength of their resolve, or the resolve only materialized late. The latter is currently the official story, but such things often only become known, if ever, years or decades later. People still debate whether Spain sunk the Maine in 1898, or FDR ignored or minimized advance warnings of Pearl Harbor to shepherd the US into WW2 in 1941.
There’s also a gigantic phase change in strategy between when you believe an aggression is deterrable, & when you think it inevitable. If deterrence is an option, sure, show strength – but be aware the potential aggressor may detect any bluffs, or discount real strength as a bluff. But as soon as you decide war is inevitable, you may instead want to hide strengths, for a more decisive military response later.
If the US/NATO concluded an invasion was inevitable 1 month, 6 months, or even years ago, there was plenty of time to secretly deploy “just in case” novel weapons & tactics - even while Ukraine’s leadership, especially, was publicly signaling “no war expected” & avoiding any overt mobilization.
Nor if you’re worried about a wider conflict - perhaps also involving Asia – & want both maximal degradation of Russian capabilities, & “mystery” advantages for as long as possible.
Surprise is a force multiplier, but a new capability is only a surprise for a short period.
And a simplistic model assuming the Ukrainian allies are optimally pursuing “prevention” as their goal insufficient to explain all mysteries.
If the EU had been clearer about how intense sanctions would be, & how firm they considered the ‘red line’ limiting conflict to the regions Russian-allied forces already claimed, maybe the whole invasion could have been deterred!
They weren’t so clear & firm, either because they were hiding the strength of their resolve, or the resolve only materialized late. The latter is currently the official story, but such things often only become known, if ever, years or decades later. People still debate whether Spain sunk the Maine in 1898, or FDR ignored or minimized advance warnings of Pearl Harbor to shepherd the US into WW2 in 1941.
There’s also a gigantic phase change in strategy between when you believe an aggression is deterrable, & when you think it inevitable. If deterrence is an option, sure, show strength – but be aware the potential aggressor may detect any bluffs, or discount real strength as a bluff. But as soon as you decide war is inevitable, you may instead want to hide strengths, for a more decisive military response later.
If the US/NATO concluded an invasion was inevitable 1 month, 6 months, or even years ago, there was plenty of time to secretly deploy “just in case” novel weapons & tactics - even while Ukraine’s leadership, especially, was publicly signaling “no war expected” & avoiding any overt mobilization.
You only need to read/listen to German news, to know that there can't have been a "grand conspiracy" of Europeans to not show enough resolve. It is very clear that many (on both sides of the political spectrum, but particularly on the left) did not believe Putin would attack, they considered this the usual sabre-rattling and were completely shocked when he attacked.
Also, the risk of deploying secret weapons into a state with significant corruption would have been much too high.
Also, the risk of deploying secret weapons into a state with significant corruption would have been much too high.
If you assign conclusive weight to recent "news", rather than historical precedents, I think you'll remain at the mercy of constructed narratives about what's really happening in high-stakes diplomacy & warmaking.
The US was shouting from the rooftops that they expected an attack, in a manner putting real credibility at risk. While laypeople, & left footsoldiers, may have completely discounted the possibility, Germany & others in NATO are close enough allies they'd have seen more of the tangible reasons why the US was saying that.
Note that feigned surprise can also be a conscious tactic, to help shepherd-along any alliance stragglers, or domestic opinion. Or, excuse inaction. "No one could have known", say the official mouthpieces for those who ignored the alarms from those who did know. "We are blameless!"
Further, if there was actual confidence in policymakers that an attack was unlikely, & that Putin was deterrable, then pre-announcing the severity of the response would have been very cheap! You won't have to do it, in the expected case. And pre-announcing makes the expected case even more likely.
The risk of coordinating with a leaky/corrupt regime isn't necessarily disqualifyng. There may be portions of the Ukraine government/military in which there was very high trust - such as close contacts in special forces, & those who have repeatedly proven themselves in the last ~8y of lower-grade hostilities. Or, people whose comms have been completely pierced – so NATO knows exactly how much corruption, or mixed-loyalties, they'll express.
Weaponry could also have been pre-positioned just outside Ukraine, or kept in the custody/knowledge of trusted contractors or deniably pre-positioned special forces. I hope you don't think Russians, like the saboteur groups repeatedly confronted in Ukrainian cities, are the only forces who can pretend to be someone else when it suits them!
As another example, no one outside of the home airbase support teams know who's really flying a fighter jet, unless enemies shoot it down & recover the pilot. I hope Ukraine has some world-class fighter pilots! But with lives and practically priceless (in the short term) military hardware at stake, if an even 10% better pilot is ready & willing from an allied counry, I suspect Ukraine can grant them a uniform & citizenship instantly. (It's been surprising how many NATO countries have said it's OK for their private citizens to go fight in Ukraine.)
The US was shouting from the rooftops that they expected an attack, in a manner putting real credibility at risk. While laypeople, & left footsoldiers, may have completely discounted the possibility, Germany & others in NATO are close enough allies they'd have seen more of the tangible reasons why the US was saying that.
Note that feigned surprise can also be a conscious tactic, to help shepherd-along any alliance stragglers, or domestic opinion. Or, excuse inaction. "No one could have known", say the official mouthpieces for those who ignored the alarms from those who did know. "We are blameless!"
Further, if there was actual confidence in policymakers that an attack was unlikely, & that Putin was deterrable, then pre-announcing the severity of the response would have been very cheap! You won't have to do it, in the expected case. And pre-announcing makes the expected case even more likely.
The risk of coordinating with a leaky/corrupt regime isn't necessarily disqualifyng. There may be portions of the Ukraine government/military in which there was very high trust - such as close contacts in special forces, & those who have repeatedly proven themselves in the last ~8y of lower-grade hostilities. Or, people whose comms have been completely pierced – so NATO knows exactly how much corruption, or mixed-loyalties, they'll express.
Weaponry could also have been pre-positioned just outside Ukraine, or kept in the custody/knowledge of trusted contractors or deniably pre-positioned special forces. I hope you don't think Russians, like the saboteur groups repeatedly confronted in Ukrainian cities, are the only forces who can pretend to be someone else when it suits them!
As another example, no one outside of the home airbase support teams know who's really flying a fighter jet, unless enemies shoot it down & recover the pilot. I hope Ukraine has some world-class fighter pilots! But with lives and practically priceless (in the short term) military hardware at stake, if an even 10% better pilot is ready & willing from an allied counry, I suspect Ukraine can grant them a uniform & citizenship instantly. (It's been surprising how many NATO countries have said it's OK for their private citizens to go fight in Ukraine.)
You massively underestimate the complexity required of any such conspiracy. NATO has 30 member states, EU has 27 member states. Most have leaders who can not ignore domestic public opinion and they almost never agree on anything. Some have leadership positions with more ceremonial role, who nevertheless have access to classified material and/or are formally the commander of the armed forces. The likelihood that even the eurosceptic leaders who were widely considered to be Putin's allies were all in on some secret plan is nil. They are simply not capable of keeping this a secret. Conspiracy theories all have this same problem, where they underestimate how many layers of bureaucracy are involved in running something as large as a country or an army.
It's much more likely that many politicians were genuinely surprised by the invasion. They ignored the Eastern Europeans, as always, who were just being paranoid about Russia, as always. People tend to ignore problems that are hard to deal with, especially when solving them seems costly, until they can ignore them no longer.
It's much more likely that many politicians were genuinely surprised by the invasion. They ignored the Eastern Europeans, as always, who were just being paranoid about Russia, as always. People tend to ignore problems that are hard to deal with, especially when solving them seems costly, until they can ignore them no longer.
As far as I can tell, none of Germany, France, or Italy – key countries who'd seemed a bit squishy – have 'eurosceptic' leaders. And I'm not alleging any "secret plan" requiring coordination – some "conspiracy" to hide the certainty of a stronger response – just the normal duplicity & halfheartedness & wishful-thinking of politicians, which you allude to.
That stronger pre-invasion deterrence wasn't popular in "domestic public opinion" is all that it takes, for the private discussions between the national-security establishments & top rulers to go roughly:
PRE-WAR SANCTION HAWKS (eg: US): "They're gonna invade all Ukraine, here's how we know, precommitting to all the tough measures you'd surely do if that happens might deter it."
PRE-WAR SANCTION DOVES (eg: DE): "Well, really-specific toughness up front isn't popular with our voters, & we're still hoping for that tiny chance Putin's just saber-rattling, despite your evidence. So, if what you say materializes, we'd be able to be tougher than Putin expects. But we can't signal that beforehand, no matter the benefits."
Voila. They've hidden their true level of commitment to retaliate economically, under the eventuality we find ourselves in – no fancy multilateral secret plans required.
The flip in Germany, especially, was dizzying, wasn't it? Do you think the whole package was improvised in the preceding few days? Or that it was assembled from preexisting "break in case of fire" emergency plans, at the very top, that lower-ranking party-members & coalition partners simply didn't need-to-know? I'm saying the latter.
That stronger pre-invasion deterrence wasn't popular in "domestic public opinion" is all that it takes, for the private discussions between the national-security establishments & top rulers to go roughly:
PRE-WAR SANCTION HAWKS (eg: US): "They're gonna invade all Ukraine, here's how we know, precommitting to all the tough measures you'd surely do if that happens might deter it."
PRE-WAR SANCTION DOVES (eg: DE): "Well, really-specific toughness up front isn't popular with our voters, & we're still hoping for that tiny chance Putin's just saber-rattling, despite your evidence. So, if what you say materializes, we'd be able to be tougher than Putin expects. But we can't signal that beforehand, no matter the benefits."
Voila. They've hidden their true level of commitment to retaliate economically, under the eventuality we find ourselves in – no fancy multilateral secret plans required.
The flip in Germany, especially, was dizzying, wasn't it? Do you think the whole package was improvised in the preceding few days? Or that it was assembled from preexisting "break in case of fire" emergency plans, at the very top, that lower-ranking party-members & coalition partners simply didn't need-to-know? I'm saying the latter.
Yes, I literally think that. It's not a coincidence that some of the claimed sanctions or support for Ukraine had to be walked back (jets) -- it's a direct consequence of lacking preparation and coordination.
One example of something that wasn't prepackaged or prepared in any way: There are reports that only Lindner and Scholz knew about the 100bn EUR fund beforehand, the rest were surprised.
One example of something that wasn't prepackaged or prepared in any way: There are reports that only Lindner and Scholz knew about the 100bn EUR fund beforehand, the rest were surprised.
Not if your goal is to win a war of attrition.
Ukraine's win condition is not "destroy every airplane in Russia," it's "keep airplanes from blowing up stuff in Ukraine."
(obligatory I don't know what I am talking about, but) Russia has heavy artillery with crazy range. If they know you have air defenses they will just use artillery shelling instead that bypasses your defense, instead of giving you bombers or landing paratroopers as targets. I think that's how most missiles have been sent to Ukrainian cities so far. I don't think deterrence was a credible option for Ukraine before.
One thing I remember is a Russian fighter operating in Northern West Syria accidentally strayed into Turkish airspace and the Turks shot it down immediately. Combine that with the Russians would have a lot of trouble replacing any losses.
[deleted]
From what I can gather from a week of obsessively following military experts’ explanations of the conflict, there seem to be two main factors at play.
One is the Russian choice of overall military tactics, which is derived from their political goals. While we can’t know exactly what it is, we can assume that Russia plans to impose some sort of political settlement on Ukraine (could be anything from puppet government to partition to annexation). Whatever this settlement is, Russia needs more than Zelenskyy’s (or some Quisling’s) signature on the dotted line: Russia very much needs at least the grudging acquiescence of the Ukrainian military, state apparatus, and general public. Without this acquiescence, Russia will be tied down indefinitely in counterinsurgency and “state building” with an unsustainable cost in manpower, money, and probably blood. To prevent this outcome, Russia initially tried to bypass most cities and focus on rapidly taking Kyiv and Kharkiv with minimal destruction. Hence the (initial) minimal aerial bombing and the various failed tactics such as yeeting paratroopers into airfields with no backup and sending light vehicles on Leroy Jenkins thunder runs into Kyiv and Kharkiv. Needless to say this plan did not succeed. So now Russia has a choice: ratchet up the destruction and try to grind Ukrainian defenses down, or fold and get out to avoid the long-term quagmire, which might eventually endanger Putin’s political survival at home. Problem is, folding would be a major show of weakness for Putin, which could also endanger his political survival at home. So far, we are beginning to see an intensification of shelling of cities, indicating that he is not folding. If this continues, Ukraine should expect to see more bombing from the Russian Air Force (coupled with more shelling from artillery).
The second factor seems to be the prevalence of portable air-defense systems (MANPADs, such as Stinger missiles) in the Ukrainian military. These systems are much harder to find and eliminate than larger anti-air weapons like the Buk or S-300, to say nothing of fixed-location air defense systems. MANPADs are also cheap—much much cheaper than military aircraft. So it becomes an expensive proposition to use aircraft at low altitude for missions like ground support. With MANPADs continuing to flow to Ukraine from friendly governments, this factor does not appear likely to change any time soon. So while Ukraine may see more high-altitude bombing as Putin intensifies the destruction, the Russian Air Force might remain leery of conducting some types of aerial operations.
One is the Russian choice of overall military tactics, which is derived from their political goals. While we can’t know exactly what it is, we can assume that Russia plans to impose some sort of political settlement on Ukraine (could be anything from puppet government to partition to annexation). Whatever this settlement is, Russia needs more than Zelenskyy’s (or some Quisling’s) signature on the dotted line: Russia very much needs at least the grudging acquiescence of the Ukrainian military, state apparatus, and general public. Without this acquiescence, Russia will be tied down indefinitely in counterinsurgency and “state building” with an unsustainable cost in manpower, money, and probably blood. To prevent this outcome, Russia initially tried to bypass most cities and focus on rapidly taking Kyiv and Kharkiv with minimal destruction. Hence the (initial) minimal aerial bombing and the various failed tactics such as yeeting paratroopers into airfields with no backup and sending light vehicles on Leroy Jenkins thunder runs into Kyiv and Kharkiv. Needless to say this plan did not succeed. So now Russia has a choice: ratchet up the destruction and try to grind Ukrainian defenses down, or fold and get out to avoid the long-term quagmire, which might eventually endanger Putin’s political survival at home. Problem is, folding would be a major show of weakness for Putin, which could also endanger his political survival at home. So far, we are beginning to see an intensification of shelling of cities, indicating that he is not folding. If this continues, Ukraine should expect to see more bombing from the Russian Air Force (coupled with more shelling from artillery).
The second factor seems to be the prevalence of portable air-defense systems (MANPADs, such as Stinger missiles) in the Ukrainian military. These systems are much harder to find and eliminate than larger anti-air weapons like the Buk or S-300, to say nothing of fixed-location air defense systems. MANPADs are also cheap—much much cheaper than military aircraft. So it becomes an expensive proposition to use aircraft at low altitude for missions like ground support. With MANPADs continuing to flow to Ukraine from friendly governments, this factor does not appear likely to change any time soon. So while Ukraine may see more high-altitude bombing as Putin intensifies the destruction, the Russian Air Force might remain leery of conducting some types of aerial operations.
There is no meaningful Russian air presence in western Ukraine. No good reason not to establish an NFZ there. To avoid conflict, stay west of the Dnieper. Appeasement does not work.
I remember reading once in the late 90's - a bit after the fall of the Soviet Union - that U.S. inspectors toured some of the then-declassified Soviet ICBM launch facilities and they came to the conclusion that the missiles would not have survived liftoff much less reached their targets. If Russia was overstating its nuclear capabilities throughout the 80's, is it possible that they've been overstating their military capabilities in general?
I am angry at the Russian Federation and impressed with the Ukrainians and terribly sad at the suffering that this war has caused and will cause for the next decade. I also find the way in which this war is being documented on and reported quite amazing.
As a very young man, my first experience with war that I can remember was my parents watching the reports on the Vietnam war. They were pretty glued to their TVs and unlike the wars before that one, there was video every day and updates every day. They felt they really "understood" what was going on because they were so very well informed. They had seen it with their own eyes after all!
However later, much later, after the war was over and more and more information about the prosecution of the war came out, it became abundantly clear that what they had "seen" was carefully managed by outside forces to convey certain "truths" which were in fact simply narratives drawn from helpful facts with unhelpful facts omitted.
There was of course other news coverage, in China (assumed to be all "propaganda") in Vietnam (presumed to be slanted toward their wants and needs), and so it was widely held by the adults that my parents socialized with (Air Force types) that the US coverage was "best, and most reliable." It was also impossible to get on the spot translations of the other stories so it could take days or weeks before you even got to read the "other side" and by then it was often overtaken by events.
This war is very different. Different even than the recent middle eastern wars of the late 20th and early 21st century. If you were an American you could be forgiven, if you watched the news, for forgetting that the US was even in a war, much less the driving force behind it. This war has an overload of information, from Twitter, to Facebook, to Tik-tok, and of course various media outlets all around the world. It fundamentally changes how one perceives and understands what is going on. While in previous wars the crafting of a narrative was the side hustle of the folks responsible for communications, in this war it is a huge part of the offensive. This "information war" which works to frame the war in a way that is useful to the framer.
Not surprisingly, it isn't nearly so easy to tell only one side of any story. I find this Reuter's story a good example of that. Who are they talking to? What experts are "stumped"? Why is the story they tell important or not important to their intended audience?
The more I read the more I recognize that nobody knows what is "really" going on. Some Russians are deserting but no concept of how many or how fast, Ukraine is winning skirmishes, but again big ones? little ones? How does it inform us on where this is going next? I don't think anyone knows.
As a very young man, my first experience with war that I can remember was my parents watching the reports on the Vietnam war. They were pretty glued to their TVs and unlike the wars before that one, there was video every day and updates every day. They felt they really "understood" what was going on because they were so very well informed. They had seen it with their own eyes after all!
However later, much later, after the war was over and more and more information about the prosecution of the war came out, it became abundantly clear that what they had "seen" was carefully managed by outside forces to convey certain "truths" which were in fact simply narratives drawn from helpful facts with unhelpful facts omitted.
There was of course other news coverage, in China (assumed to be all "propaganda") in Vietnam (presumed to be slanted toward their wants and needs), and so it was widely held by the adults that my parents socialized with (Air Force types) that the US coverage was "best, and most reliable." It was also impossible to get on the spot translations of the other stories so it could take days or weeks before you even got to read the "other side" and by then it was often overtaken by events.
This war is very different. Different even than the recent middle eastern wars of the late 20th and early 21st century. If you were an American you could be forgiven, if you watched the news, for forgetting that the US was even in a war, much less the driving force behind it. This war has an overload of information, from Twitter, to Facebook, to Tik-tok, and of course various media outlets all around the world. It fundamentally changes how one perceives and understands what is going on. While in previous wars the crafting of a narrative was the side hustle of the folks responsible for communications, in this war it is a huge part of the offensive. This "information war" which works to frame the war in a way that is useful to the framer.
Not surprisingly, it isn't nearly so easy to tell only one side of any story. I find this Reuter's story a good example of that. Who are they talking to? What experts are "stumped"? Why is the story they tell important or not important to their intended audience?
The more I read the more I recognize that nobody knows what is "really" going on. Some Russians are deserting but no concept of how many or how fast, Ukraine is winning skirmishes, but again big ones? little ones? How does it inform us on where this is going next? I don't think anyone knows.
I'd have thought that Russia would have air superiority by now, but it seems they don't.
Ukraine doesn't use its air power wisely, because I'd think that 60km long convoy would be a juicy target, ripe for the picking. The Russians probably have Buks and S-400 SAMs lined up all over the place to protect the convoy.
Ukraine doesn't use its air power wisely, because I'd think that 60km long convoy would be a juicy target, ripe for the picking. The Russians probably have Buks and S-400 SAMs lined up all over the place to protect the convoy.
I believe they do have air superiority, just not air supremacy.
The convoy is likely stationary but well-defended. And, more importantly, appears to have already been stopped. Ukraine will use its limited resources to attack easier or more critical targets.
"Pilot" seems to me rather high status, so I would bet that the average Russian pilot comes from a wealthier / better connected demographic than the average citizen.
Could the potential fallout from high losses in this demographic lead to risk averse deployment of these assets?
Could the potential fallout from high losses in this demographic lead to risk averse deployment of these assets?
Before realizing that there is natural Gas west of Crimea I thought:
Why is a Ukrain NATO membership a risk for Russia, there is no change that in Europe NATO would attack Russia, as European NATO members would not allow it.
That is except if Russia expects to be in a war against NATO in the not to long future. (Not necessary start the war though).
This behaviour could also fit into this argument, i.e. losing a lot by being trying not to lose the important parts to much.
Through it could also be:
- Political games including high Generals of the Russian Air Force rejecting getting fully involved in the war.
- Putin being paranoid and believing that if they send major Air Force troops to Ukrain then some 3rd party will use this to invade Russia/destroy major parts of Russians Air Force.
- Putin hoping to get an excuse to wage war against NATO and therefore is holding back the Air Force to launch a attack against other forces.
- Russia being in a much worse economical state then believed, not affording to fly the full Air Force.
- Something having subtle damaged huge parts of their Air Force (and is kept secret). Like e.g. there being a problem with some of the materials used to build them, or with their guidance system, or similar.
- Russia is falling apart (on a high command level) Putin has lost most power, including command over the Air Force, this is a last desperate attempt to regain power.
EDIT: Maybe this post is a bit too much taping into conspiracy theory territory.
Why is a Ukrain NATO membership a risk for Russia, there is no change that in Europe NATO would attack Russia, as European NATO members would not allow it.
That is except if Russia expects to be in a war against NATO in the not to long future. (Not necessary start the war though).
This behaviour could also fit into this argument, i.e. losing a lot by being trying not to lose the important parts to much.
Through it could also be:
- Political games including high Generals of the Russian Air Force rejecting getting fully involved in the war.
- Putin being paranoid and believing that if they send major Air Force troops to Ukrain then some 3rd party will use this to invade Russia/destroy major parts of Russians Air Force.
- Putin hoping to get an excuse to wage war against NATO and therefore is holding back the Air Force to launch a attack against other forces.
- Russia being in a much worse economical state then believed, not affording to fly the full Air Force.
- Something having subtle damaged huge parts of their Air Force (and is kept secret). Like e.g. there being a problem with some of the materials used to build them, or with their guidance system, or similar.
- Russia is falling apart (on a high command level) Putin has lost most power, including command over the Air Force, this is a last desperate attempt to regain power.
EDIT: Maybe this post is a bit too much taping into conspiracy theory territory.
> Putin hoping to get an excuse to wage war against NATO
This would be the most delusional thing anyone has ever hoped for. If Putin is that far gone, we’re all doomed
This would be the most delusional thing anyone has ever hoped for. If Putin is that far gone, we’re all doomed
My personal speculation: some other power(s) outside of Ukraine are responsible for using their soft power to handicap the Russian Air Force, whether via hacking or via a secretive-yet-direct physical intervention within Russia.
The "non-news" of Russia Air Force not showing up was not naturally getting coverage in the news, and now DoD figures are making public statements in order to point it out, raise awareness, and poke Putin in the side. Meanwhile, every delay in action from the Russian Air Force weighs heavily in favor of Ukraine.
In this way, major adversaries to Russia that are unable to get directly involved for fear of escalation are still able to place their hands on the scales via more indirect means. Even though there is not official treaty requiring Russian adversaries to intervene, it is often still in their best national defense interests to limit Russia's expansionist tendencies in whatever way they can.
It is all a continuation of major world powers fighting wars by proxy; the dominant pattern of war-fighting after nuclear proliferation became a thing.
The "non-news" of Russia Air Force not showing up was not naturally getting coverage in the news, and now DoD figures are making public statements in order to point it out, raise awareness, and poke Putin in the side. Meanwhile, every delay in action from the Russian Air Force weighs heavily in favor of Ukraine.
In this way, major adversaries to Russia that are unable to get directly involved for fear of escalation are still able to place their hands on the scales via more indirect means. Even though there is not official treaty requiring Russian adversaries to intervene, it is often still in their best national defense interests to limit Russia's expansionist tendencies in whatever way they can.
It is all a continuation of major world powers fighting wars by proxy; the dominant pattern of war-fighting after nuclear proliferation became a thing.
It might just be that they don't trust most of their pilots to not surrender/defect, and being in a plane makes that easier. I don't really know, but it make as much sense as anything else.
That’s ridiculous, Russia is not North Korea, you can leave the country without hijacking a Fighter Jet
I think that Russia may have a two-prong strategy: either make sure Ukraine is not joining NATO, or make sure that Ukraine that joins NATO is completely wrecked.
In the alternative reality, where Ukraine promises tomorrow not to join NATO (ever), the Russian targets for this war may be considered achieved, and everyone could simply go home, probably throwing in a couple billions deal for Ukraine recovery. This would be the best outcome for everyone. But this will not happen tomorrow.
If this won't happen at all, the Russians can always wreck Ukraine later, and this is where their air force may play part.
In short, I think the Russians are showing some restraint, for now, to make sure the quick outcome still can happen.
In the alternative reality, where Ukraine promises tomorrow not to join NATO (ever), the Russian targets for this war may be considered achieved, and everyone could simply go home, probably throwing in a couple billions deal for Ukraine recovery. This would be the best outcome for everyone. But this will not happen tomorrow.
If this won't happen at all, the Russians can always wreck Ukraine later, and this is where their air force may play part.
In short, I think the Russians are showing some restraint, for now, to make sure the quick outcome still can happen.
I doubt that Russian demands about NATO are in good faith. It's hard to believe that the goal of this invasion was to prevent encirclement, given how Finland and Sweeden's reactions were completely predictable.
I think the goal was annexation. The demands put out right now are intentionally unreasonable, but even if they were met, it would not stop the fighting.
I think the goal was annexation. The demands put out right now are intentionally unreasonable, but even if they were met, it would not stop the fighting.
There seem to also be natural gas reserves in the sea west of Crimea.
If Ukrain joins NATO Russia would not be able to hold onto Crimea and could become a Petrol state.
With renewables replacing part of the Gas energy demand long term (10/15y) this could mean that Ukrain could replace all Gas imports previously done from Russia. At the same time a modern and well-working Ukrain could influence Russia (as a unintended side-effect) in a destabilizing way (anti-authoritarian Government movements).
So if my info is correct a stable NATO Ukrain could, in a decade or so, lead to a situation where Russia is making very little money, no longer being able to afford much military besides for self-defense usage. That there is also a shrinking populating constantly reducing the amount of "potential soldiers" isn't helping. Neither is helping that a lot of middle tier and upper middle tier Russians have left Russia in the last many years (I think, not 100% sure), this reduces the chance for economical growth through new businesses.
If all of this is true (I'm not sure) then Putin might believe that they have to either take over or majorly destabilize Ukrain if Russia like it's currently is want to continue to exists. (This doesn't mean it would disappear, but it would need to change likely at the cost of the current oligarchs.)
If Ukrain joins NATO Russia would not be able to hold onto Crimea and could become a Petrol state.
With renewables replacing part of the Gas energy demand long term (10/15y) this could mean that Ukrain could replace all Gas imports previously done from Russia. At the same time a modern and well-working Ukrain could influence Russia (as a unintended side-effect) in a destabilizing way (anti-authoritarian Government movements).
So if my info is correct a stable NATO Ukrain could, in a decade or so, lead to a situation where Russia is making very little money, no longer being able to afford much military besides for self-defense usage. That there is also a shrinking populating constantly reducing the amount of "potential soldiers" isn't helping. Neither is helping that a lot of middle tier and upper middle tier Russians have left Russia in the last many years (I think, not 100% sure), this reduces the chance for economical growth through new businesses.
If all of this is true (I'm not sure) then Putin might believe that they have to either take over or majorly destabilize Ukrain if Russia like it's currently is want to continue to exists. (This doesn't mean it would disappear, but it would need to change likely at the cost of the current oligarchs.)
OTOH we don’t have any evidence of Russia having any beef with either Georgia or Ukraine, up to 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, where NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would be accepted as members. Georgia was wrecked in half a year after that, and Ukraine since 2014, since the Orange Revolution.
The annexation argument came after the fact.
The annexation argument came after the fact.
The Orange Revolution was in 2004. The one in 2013-2014 started with Russia pushing their semi-friendly semi-puppet Ukrainian president to abandon an association agreement with the EU. He pursued that agreement quite vigorously until mid 2013, when derailing it could have been quite easy (stop a few laws from passing, or don't sign them, or put poison pills into them that won't be acceptable to the EU and wrangle over wording for years, etc). Maybe he also believed Russia only cares about NATO, but EU is fine. Anyway, eventually Putin told him in no uncertain terms to do a 180, which he did. The protests that followed eventually escalated into him trying and failing to assume dictatorial powers, ordering a slaughter of ~100 protesters, and promptly fucking off into the dustbin of history.
So it's not really about NATO, per se.
So it's not really about NATO, per se.
see also: Belarus (russia stopped quite pro russian, but democratic opposition)
problem is - its either nato or russian puppet (e.g. russia would force ukraine to invade moldova)
I think there's a third option -- that of independent Ukraine, unassociated with anyone (Swiss-style). The option of NATO -- as is clear from Russian actions -- isn't acceptable to Russia, but this third option may be.
(And I don't get into the argument of whether Russia should have a say in Ukraine's future — you and I may completely agree that it shouldn't, but Russia clearly thinks otherwise.)
(And I don't get into the argument of whether Russia should have a say in Ukraine's future — you and I may completely agree that it shouldn't, but Russia clearly thinks otherwise.)
It's an internal resistance conducted by the military. In the coming days I would expect a coup, Putin's arrest(or worse), the new administration, end of war.
I seriously doubt that this would pan out. I think Putin is definitely losing support internally but the fear is still very much present. All of his political opponents are either imprisoned, exiled or dead. Some are even exiled and dead.
No one wants to lose their life going against someone so ruthless knowing they could lose their life... or their loved ones.
No one wants to lose their life going against someone so ruthless knowing they could lose their life... or their loved ones.
Russian history knows many examples of coups conducted by people from the inner circle of dictators, starting from Paul I in 1801 and ending with two coups in 1991 and 1993.
So, taking down putin from within is a plausible event.
So, taking down putin from within is a plausible event.
I also wondered if coming up with enough pilots who were willing, or they could trust not to defect, was an issue. Offering $5 million per plane is a great idea.
Willing to put money on that?
I think it's immoral to bet on people's lives.
One theory I’ve seen is that Russians lack reliably working IFF, the friend-or-foe system. This would explain several friendly fire incidents.
Not that I want to play contrariant or anything, but assuming the Russian air force is simply "bad at what it does" feels incredibly short-sighted.
I would like to have the other versions where the air force is simply saving it's might for later, playing the long game, kept in reserve, etc... Rather that. Assuming they're bad.
Or maybe someone in the air force is not fully cooperating with the war effort ? Is there someone in charge that might want to keep a chance to take over negociations with clean hands after Putin is gone ?
I know, Occam's razor and everything ; but the "Russian army, baaaad" theory sounds more far fetched.
I would like to have the other versions where the air force is simply saving it's might for later, playing the long game, kept in reserve, etc... Rather that. Assuming they're bad.
Or maybe someone in the air force is not fully cooperating with the war effort ? Is there someone in charge that might want to keep a chance to take over negociations with clean hands after Putin is gone ?
I know, Occam's razor and everything ; but the "Russian army, baaaad" theory sounds more far fetched.
My guess is he's saving them for a bigger invasion of other countries if he's able to take Ukraine.
I wonder if there is significant cyber attacks on Russian military infrastructure that is slowing them down?
I doubt their military infrastructure is as dependent on the internet as ours may be.
[deleted]
Nobody referenced the recent industrial scale production of hypersonic nuclear weapons that travel at mach 10 that Russia believes can win a nuclear war?
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/hypersonic-missile-what-meani...
To be alarmist, it looks like this is for all the marbles. The Russians think they can win a world war. The reason they are hardly using their Air Force is they are holding it in reserve for the rest of the campaign to reestablish the Soviet Union.
Once they take control of an stabilize the Ukraine, hopefully not like they completely pulverized Chechnya, despite brutal islamist insurgency, they are going to do the rest of Eastern Europe.
All you guys are saying the insurgency will win, but now the Russians have a whole new generation of counterinsurgency tech that they proved on the ground in Syria. It's going to be very ugly.
What's worse is the rest of the world needs Russia's food, fertilizer and energy exports. There will be severe hardship throughout the world without all of that while the war is ongoing.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/hypersonic-missile-what-meani...
To be alarmist, it looks like this is for all the marbles. The Russians think they can win a world war. The reason they are hardly using their Air Force is they are holding it in reserve for the rest of the campaign to reestablish the Soviet Union.
Once they take control of an stabilize the Ukraine, hopefully not like they completely pulverized Chechnya, despite brutal islamist insurgency, they are going to do the rest of Eastern Europe.
All you guys are saying the insurgency will win, but now the Russians have a whole new generation of counterinsurgency tech that they proved on the ground in Syria. It's going to be very ugly.
What's worse is the rest of the world needs Russia's food, fertilizer and energy exports. There will be severe hardship throughout the world without all of that while the war is ongoing.
I think its odd that "military experts" are stumped:
If Russia performs a blitzkrieg like attack they would level Ukraine to the ground or destroy major infrastructure. Russia would have to pay to rebuild everything with a pissed off international community. That would cost a hell of a lot more than what they would gain. I don't see why they are surprised, after you realize Russia/Putin isn't trying to destroy, just conquer.
It appears like Russia just wants to take over the land, make it a puppet state, and benefit from its resources. Even the damage to civilian buildings look more of a scare tactic to get Ukrainians to surrender than to win by destruction. Countless sources have said that Russia didn't expect the pushback.
This whole thing is because Ukrainians have shown amazing resistance. If you look at military battles: Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Thermopylae explains the advantages/current success of Ukrainians, hopefully with a better outcome <3.
The unknown is how Putin is going to save face after all of this.
If Russia performs a blitzkrieg like attack they would level Ukraine to the ground or destroy major infrastructure. Russia would have to pay to rebuild everything with a pissed off international community. That would cost a hell of a lot more than what they would gain. I don't see why they are surprised, after you realize Russia/Putin isn't trying to destroy, just conquer.
It appears like Russia just wants to take over the land, make it a puppet state, and benefit from its resources. Even the damage to civilian buildings look more of a scare tactic to get Ukrainians to surrender than to win by destruction. Countless sources have said that Russia didn't expect the pushback.
This whole thing is because Ukrainians have shown amazing resistance. If you look at military battles: Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Thermopylae explains the advantages/current success of Ukrainians, hopefully with a better outcome <3.
The unknown is how Putin is going to save face after all of this.
Let Russia keep Chernobyl so they can call it a win.
It makes me wonder if the best deterrence (and perhaps that is the psyops being exercised here) to Putin is to threaten the external (and perhaps internal?) perception of Russia's military might. If other nations generally start to perceive that Russia isn't able to competently or effectively exercise its military then that is a much bigger strategic loss than some sanctions.
It will quickly make the option of negotiating a treaty and taking any small face saving win as a symbolic success look far more attractive than appearing impotent and incompetent and unable to even control a nation directly on its own borders.
It will quickly make the option of negotiating a treaty and taking any small face saving win as a symbolic success look far more attractive than appearing impotent and incompetent and unable to even control a nation directly on its own borders.
Cannon fodder conscripts are cheaper that jets
Would be possible that their objective was to start by invading easily the Ukraine and Moldova then with close base to NATO old soviet nations start the "real" war to conquer all their "territories" back?
If so, their plan just completely blew up now with their destroyed economy and wasting a lot more of their planned resources to capture only the first step… And Putin don't want to admit/face defeat so is trying to win the Ukraine even with the fact that he already lost.
It all is so insane, it is freaking hard to understand these maniacs…
Slava Ukraini!
If so, their plan just completely blew up now with their destroyed economy and wasting a lot more of their planned resources to capture only the first step… And Putin don't want to admit/face defeat so is trying to win the Ukraine even with the fact that he already lost.
It all is so insane, it is freaking hard to understand these maniacs…
Slava Ukraini!
[deleted]
> “The confusion over how Russia has used its air force comes as President Joe Biden's administration rejects calls by Kyiv for a no-fly zone that could draw the United States directly into a conflict with Russia, whose plans for its air force are unclear.”
Perhaps Russia assumes that dominating the skies with more aircraft than Ukraine would force an international call for a no-fly zone. This would drag other countries into the conflict because the mandate would have to be enforced.
Perhaps Russia assumes that dominating the skies with more aircraft than Ukraine would force an international call for a no-fly zone. This would drag other countries into the conflict because the mandate would have to be enforced.
You can have an enormous airforce on paper, but not be able to wield it in those numbers. It's possible they simply can't get enough working planes together to make a difference, and what they have working is all that they have. It's also possible that Putin is afraid of some other border being attacked and is keeping all planes for defense (though that seems rather stupid). You can't win a ground war if the enemy can indiscriminately destroy your troops, vehicles and logistics, no matter how many people you can throw into battle. Of course this did work in WW2 as the USSR sent enormous armies full of people who were often unarmed (pick up a dead mans rifle), and had Commissars behind them to shoot anyone who failed to go forward. This is no longer the case, and it's entirely possible the troops (and some leadership) simply doesn't have any desire to kill themselves in a war they care nothing about.
> Of course this did work in WW2 as the USSR sent enormous armies full of people who were often unarmed (pick up a dead mans rifle), and had Commissars behind them to shoot anyone who failed to go forward.
This is not an accurate representation, see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31t5on/did_t...
This is not an accurate representation, see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31t5on/did_t...
Could Putin's end game be that he expects Ukraine to strike back inside of Russia, perhaps a missle on the Kremlin? Then that would give him justification to just carpet bomb Kyiv?
Ukraine already struck back inside Russian with a missile attack on an airfield[1]. But I don't think Ukraine has the manpower or the equipment to get munitions anywhere near Moscow.
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-forces-target-russian-airfi...
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-forces-target-russian-airfi...
But it might be an end game in terms of a false flag to justify such a bombing in Russian propaganda. They can't just outright go for the bombing without such a justification.
it's not reported in russian media as it will contradict narrative - successful campaign to support armies of LNR/DNS to liberate their republics. Nothing else is reported in media
What about the attempts on Kyiv and shelling of Lviv? Didn't Putin say that he wanted to "denazify" all of Ukraine in his opening declaration, not just LNR/DNS?
absolutely nothing. nada. zero. it's full blown 1984. everybody who says word war instead of "special military operation" is taken off air (they shut down two major radio stations). they are going to make televised school lesson explaining to kids purpose of operation is to keep republics safe (they also sent upfront documents showing how things must be explained to children) duma supposed to make law tomorrow that spreading misinformation about "operation" is an offence.
use google translate to browse those ru domains : ria lenta gazeta
use google translate to browse those ru domains : ria lenta gazeta
So, suppose that Putin does capture all of eastern Ukraine. How does he plan to announce it to the population? "Surprise! it wasn't actually just LNR/DNS!"?
"They overthrew their nazi juna and surrendered". The official propoganda states that ukranian army doesn't fight, only nazi batallions. also nazi's execute ukranian military personal that refuses to fight. there is an article about this on ria
Also this was published on 26th and purged https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
Also this was published on 26th and purged https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
Do you think Putin wants to find a negotiated solution right now, or he's still all-in on the outcome?
i think all intelligence agencies trying to figure it out. yet..
on one side there been a bit softening with regards to what russia demands from Ukraine, according to russian media. For example that started to loudly demand today that Ukraine will declare to be non-nuclear country. They didn't demand it before so if Ukraine agrees to it (it never tried to do it anyway) it will be a win for internal consumption.
On the other side their economy is crumbling. They are in conflict with everybody. On 4th there is supposed to be joint session of parliament and there are assumption that will be announced either mobilization or martial law/state of war/something.
On the other side their economy is crumbling. They are in conflict with everybody. On 4th there is supposed to be joint session of parliament and there are assumption that will be announced either mobilization or martial law/state of war/something.
ukraine already stroke stroke back at russia.
- one missile blew up few military planes at airport somewhere near belgorod i think
- another one was targeted at airport at taganrog 2 days ago. outcome unknown
- bombed fuel supply train in russia
but kremlin is outside of rage of ukraine weapons and it has very heavy air defense systems
but kremlin is outside of rage of ukraine weapons and it has very heavy air defense systems
Almost everyone underestimating Putin.
Probably there’s more than meets the eye. For sure a lot of wishful thinking in western views.
Putin never lost a war.
Not defending him, just noting that the “good guys” don’t always win.
Or we've been overestimating Putin for the past decade and his "crafty tough guy" persona was just successful marketing. My personal opinion on this changed when I saw pictures of him sitting at the end of that long table[1] when talking to his advisors/generals.
The fact that he's that scared of COVID shatters the tough guy persona. The fact that he was seemingly ok with these pictures going public shows that he has no sense of how silly and bad this looks.
[1] https://nz.news.yahoo.com/photos-putin-keeps-his-distance-du...
The fact that he's that scared of COVID shatters the tough guy persona. The fact that he was seemingly ok with these pictures going public shows that he has no sense of how silly and bad this looks.
[1] https://nz.news.yahoo.com/photos-putin-keeps-his-distance-du...
Putin's never really fought a war though, so he would be hard pressed to have won any. The conflicts Russia has engaged in during his reign have been small affairs where there was basically never any real military resistance against Russia. Each of those conflicts was fait accompli as soon as it started.
Ukraine is a different beast. Its a country with a regular army that has spent the last 8 years undergoing a rapid modernization process for said army. They have 44 million people, and lots of western support.
Ukraine is a different beast. Its a country with a regular army that has spent the last 8 years undergoing a rapid modernization process for said army. They have 44 million people, and lots of western support.
Or this Putin is not the same Putin he was 8 years ago..
No air force, because cost-benefit isnt there. Too many things to take them out. Not enough things to drop bombs on. Dont worry, they did airstrike the
Navy doing navy things? aka floating there threatening civilians.
Army is in terrible disarray losing tons of equipment to mud. Losing even more equipment to combat. Their MREs expired 7 years ago. Their army sure is looking pathetic.
Is this Putin's last hurrah?
Navy doing navy things? aka floating there threatening civilians.
Army is in terrible disarray losing tons of equipment to mud. Losing even more equipment to combat. Their MREs expired 7 years ago. Their army sure is looking pathetic.
Is this Putin's last hurrah?
It's hard to be sure, but he is now surrounded by (ex?) multibillionnaires who have all of a sudden lost much of the ability to enjoy their airplanes, yachts, houses etc, ONLY because of voices in Putin's head telling him about his historic mission (or whatever those voices are telling him).
I think his life expectancy has gone down as of about a week ago.
I think his life expectancy has gone down as of about a week ago.
>It's hard to be sure, but he is now surrounded by (ex?) multibillionnaires who have all of a sudden lost much of the ability to enjoy their airplanes, yachts, houses etc, ONLY because of voices in Putin's head telling him about his historic mission (or whatever those voices are telling him).
On paper they are still billionaires because the stock exchange was shutdown. I really don't know how much power they have exactly. I doubt they have any sort of assassination capability. Nor do I expect them to exercise this.
Ultimately this is about defunding their war. Their ability to sustain this war has a very short lifetime now. They are now excluded from the global community. The Russian people are headed into poverty.
We get to just sit back and let that happen.
On paper they are still billionaires because the stock exchange was shutdown. I really don't know how much power they have exactly. I doubt they have any sort of assassination capability. Nor do I expect them to exercise this.
Ultimately this is about defunding their war. Their ability to sustain this war has a very short lifetime now. They are now excluded from the global community. The Russian people are headed into poverty.
We get to just sit back and let that happen.
It’s the siloviki who might do something if they have a rival group that could take over the administration
Just because the US is in love with 'Shock and Awe' doesn't mean everyone else sees it as the appropriate methodology in all circumstances.
Modern militaries that don't like taking tons of unnecessary losses on the ground are in love with controlling the air. It's not like there's a wide variety of proven strategies and countries just pick one that they're "in love" with—there's a fairly narrow set, in these circumstances, which all look pretty similar. It's definitely curious that Russia hasn't committed to establishing and leveraging air superiority, despite dedicating very substantial ground forces and on paper being entirely capable of doing so. One of the following must be true:
1) They do not believe they can, so are not trying.
2) They believe they could, but are choosing not to.
3) They tried, but, for some reason that's not currently clear and isn't evident in battlefield losses, failed. (this is probably the least likely and also the most grave—it suggests severe problems with their command structure)
Whichever's the case, it's a real head-scratcher and is the main reason this isn't going how most folks thought it would.
1) They do not believe they can, so are not trying.
2) They believe they could, but are choosing not to.
3) They tried, but, for some reason that's not currently clear and isn't evident in battlefield losses, failed. (this is probably the least likely and also the most grave—it suggests severe problems with their command structure)
Whichever's the case, it's a real head-scratcher and is the main reason this isn't going how most folks thought it would.
A combination of 1 & 3 seems highly likely in my uninformed opinion. Economically, losing aircraft will make a war very expensive very quickly. Losing large numbers of top of the line aircraft will severely harm Russian military aircraft exports.
With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine, or ways to get out of Ukraine should things go south. Russia has few stealth aircraft. In the 1991 gulf war, 60's era Soviet SA-2 missiles were able to defend Baghdad against non-stealth aircraft despite weeks of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses(SEAD) strikes.
A MIG-29 costs ~20 million dollars new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike
With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine, or ways to get out of Ukraine should things go south. Russia has few stealth aircraft. In the 1991 gulf war, 60's era Soviet SA-2 missiles were able to defend Baghdad against non-stealth aircraft despite weeks of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses(SEAD) strikes.
A MIG-29 costs ~20 million dollars new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike
>With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine
Europe only contacts the western border. Russian aircraft can approach from the north (Russia and Belarus), south (Black Sea) and east (Russia).
Europe only contacts the western border. Russian aircraft can approach from the north (Russia and Belarus), south (Black Sea) and east (Russia).
I've often suspected that the F-35 was so expensive only a handful could be built, and would not be risked in combat because it was too expensive to replace.
The F-35 isn't that expensive these days. It's still a huge amount of money to spend on something good for nothing but war, insert your view here, but the price isn't much different than the new F-16s being bought by the Israelis.
That being said however stealth aircraft are not cheap to maintain at all.
That being said however stealth aircraft are not cheap to maintain at all.
Curiously I wonder if a similar problem is occurring with SA-400 missiles and other Russian air defenses. They may be too expensive to shoot at low cost drones such as the bayaktar.
I can imagine a considerable problem with the command structure is that if you've got a war that forces are badly prepared for and reluctant to fight in, you have to tread much more carefully with the orders you give your small number of highly trained (and relatively smart) pilots based on home soil than your large number of dispensible conscript troops you've driven into the conflict (or your gung ho special forces). Easier for them to disobey, and much more cause for alarm if they do, and no matter how dedicated they are to following orders, there are fewer pilots and planes to risk than armoured personnel carriers, artillery units and dated tanks.
> it suggests severe problems with their command structure
This is what my money is on.
Sending ground forces in without establishing air superiority is ludicrous, for reasons that we are seeing now. I guess we have a good idea where the military coup will originate.
This is what my money is on.
Sending ground forces in without establishing air superiority is ludicrous, for reasons that we are seeing now. I guess we have a good idea where the military coup will originate.
The US is "in love with Shock and Awe" because it worked extremely well. Russia doesn't have the air power to pull it off, which is why they are running a version of Deep War, but without a second echelon to prevent their supply lines from getting picked off.
In reality it appears that Russia had a big problem with "ghost units" and rapidly tried to fill their invasion force with conscripts in the weeks before the invasion began. It's why we're seeing so many ill-equipped soldiers and awful tactics where tanks/APCs are driving solo through fields.
In reality it appears that Russia had a big problem with "ghost units" and rapidly tried to fill their invasion force with conscripts in the weeks before the invasion began. It's why we're seeing so many ill-equipped soldiers and awful tactics where tanks/APCs are driving solo through fields.
Russia absolutely has the air power to pull it off, you clearly haven't seen Syria.
My guess is that they have, correctly, anticipated that mass casualties of white civilians would play very badly internationally and domestically.
e: I'm downvoted.. for what? It's obvious that the ethnicity of the victim matters for both domestic and international perception, all you need to do is look at a bit of media coverage of reporters bemoaning that this is happening to "blue eyed, blond haired" people or in the "civilized world." There is a different standard for what sort of casualties are considered acceptable.
My guess is that they have, correctly, anticipated that mass casualties of white civilians would play very badly internationally and domestically.
e: I'm downvoted.. for what? It's obvious that the ethnicity of the victim matters for both domestic and international perception, all you need to do is look at a bit of media coverage of reporters bemoaning that this is happening to "blue eyed, blond haired" people or in the "civilized world." There is a different standard for what sort of casualties are considered acceptable.
I downvoted you because this line of logic is deployed, I believe, by race obsessed westerners who are privately fuming that a shooting war has sidelined their culture war for a few weeks. "Don't forget about me and the things I care about!"
Just because a talking head or two makes those claims does not mean it is all of the sudden the truth. If Russia was worried about the looks of white civilian casualties, they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. By the way, how many news reporters didn't make the claim that people only care about this because blue eyed/blonde haired people are involved?
Just because a talking head or two makes those claims does not mean it is all of the sudden the truth. If Russia was worried about the looks of white civilian casualties, they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. By the way, how many news reporters didn't make the claim that people only care about this because blue eyed/blonde haired people are involved?
Regardless of race, plenty of people have brought up that this is about as popular to many Russians as the US invading Canada would be.
I agree, but that is a completely different point than "The western world only cares about this conflict because the victims have blue eyes and blonde hair"
But if you compare the outrage about what was happening in Syria (or Iraq or Afghanistan) to the outrage now, we clearly are at a very different level. It can't be because the Russian are acting so much more ruthlessly now.
If you have a theory to explain a set of facts, pointing to the set of facts as an implicit justification for your theory does not logically follow.
Maybe Westerners care more about the Ukrainian situation because Ukraine was by and large a peaceful, lawful country until the war started. Do you think the western response would have been a little different if there was a pre-existing civil war in Ukraine, and Russia stepped in to try to turn the tide for one of the factions?
Maybe Westerners care more about the Ukrainian situation because Ukraine was by and large a peaceful, lawful country until the war started. Do you think the western response would have been a little different if there was a pre-existing civil war in Ukraine, and Russia stepped in to try to turn the tide for one of the factions?
I don't know how to say this nicely, but you seem not to have been paying attention. There was a pre-existing war happening. Russia annexed the Krim in 2014 and there have been skirmishes in the separatists areas ever since.
Also do tell what was the existing civil war in Iraq?
The guardian had an article about some of the comments made by journalist and politicians and there is no other way then to say they are racist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
Also do tell what was the existing civil war in Iraq?
The guardian had an article about some of the comments made by journalist and politicians and there is no other way then to say they are racist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
How was the conflict between Ukraine and Russia playing out before 2 weeks ago? How was the conflict in Syria before US/Russia involvement? Would you call them comparable?
If Westerners only care about blonde hair blue eyed people, why did no one care about the Ukrainian war before 2 weeks ago?
Your link has, I think, 4 people who make a claim about why the West cares about the war. Is there a reason you put so much weight on those 4 people, but not on the thousands of other journalists covering the situation who aren't making those claims? Did you know a single one of those people before hearing their coverage of the war?
If Westerners only care about blonde hair blue eyed people, why did no one care about the Ukrainian war before 2 weeks ago?
Your link has, I think, 4 people who make a claim about why the West cares about the war. Is there a reason you put so much weight on those 4 people, but not on the thousands of other journalists covering the situation who aren't making those claims? Did you know a single one of those people before hearing their coverage of the war?
[deleted]
It seems like you're trying to shoe-horn in an entirely different point? How does maintaining air supremacy as a military tactic relate to mass casualties?
You can't destroy anti-aircraft guns located in civilian areas without killing civilians.
Worked well to what end exactly? They decimated the North Korean population and made an eternal enemy out of them. They fought insurgents for 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I assume that Russia doesn't want the same result in a neighbouring country.
I assume that Russia doesn't want the same result in a neighbouring country.
From the article...
"That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London"
"That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London"
From the development of air power theory a century ago, it's been widely held that strategic bombing of civilian targets is one of the best ways to quickly end a war. The actual failure of strategic bombing to end wars quickly every time it's been tried notwithstanding.
The Japanese surrender in WWII due to sustained strategic bombing of civilian cities without a single troop landing in mainland Japan is a clear contradiction to this take.
It's not a clear contradiction; it's one of only two cases that are arguable (the other one being NATO bombing of Serbia during the dissolution of Yugoslavia).
It's noted that it's not clear how much the atomic bombings influenced the decision to surrender, versus the near-simultaneous declaration of war by the USSR on Japan. Furthermore, by the time Japan surrendered, it was clear that Japan had already thoroughly lost. Recall that similar bombing campaigns against the UK (Battle of Britain) and Germany utter failed to bring those nations any closer to surrender.
In any case, compared to the actual theorists like Giulio Douhet who were, before World War II, arguing that attacking cities would cause the will of the nations to collapse before they fully mobilized, the actual results fell far short of the theorists.
It's noted that it's not clear how much the atomic bombings influenced the decision to surrender, versus the near-simultaneous declaration of war by the USSR on Japan. Furthermore, by the time Japan surrendered, it was clear that Japan had already thoroughly lost. Recall that similar bombing campaigns against the UK (Battle of Britain) and Germany utter failed to bring those nations any closer to surrender.
In any case, compared to the actual theorists like Giulio Douhet who were, before World War II, arguing that attacking cities would cause the will of the nations to collapse before they fully mobilized, the actual results fell far short of the theorists.
> It's noted that it's not clear how much the atomic bombings influenced the decision to surrender,
My understanding is that communications between Hirohito and Stalin indicate that Japan was attempting to begin negotiation of a total surrender after Midway and that Truman's diary eludes to this moment. The main argument I've seen to contradict this is that they don't believe Japan wasn't actually going to accept a full surrender at this point.
My understanding is that communications between Hirohito and Stalin indicate that Japan was attempting to begin negotiation of a total surrender after Midway and that Truman's diary eludes to this moment. The main argument I've seen to contradict this is that they don't believe Japan wasn't actually going to accept a full surrender at this point.
We've got a sample size of one for "conflicts ended via nuclear explosions", though.
If Russia nuked Ukraine they might win the war on Ukraine, sure. Japan didn't even quit until there were two though. Would they have quit with no nukes and just firebombing?
[deleted]
Japan didn't surrender because of anything the US did, but because Russia declared war on them (two days after Hiroshima and a day before Nagasaki).
The US may just as well have dropped 10 more nukes and it wouldn't have changed anything. The Japanese didn't care whether it took a 1.000 bombs to destroy a city or a single one. Even more so, since they didn't know anything about the radioactive fallout and long-term effects. To them, it was just a bigger bomb.
The US may just as well have dropped 10 more nukes and it wouldn't have changed anything. The Japanese didn't care whether it took a 1.000 bombs to destroy a city or a single one. Even more so, since they didn't know anything about the radioactive fallout and long-term effects. To them, it was just a bigger bomb.
I don't think it is just about shock and awe. It's about controlling the airspace. Controlling the airspace has advantages during conflict outside of bombing.
It's not necessarily about 'Shock and Awe' attacks on Ukrainian targets, though. They're also allowing drone and aircraft attacks on their tanks, troops, and supply chains. You would expect the Russian air force to be seeking air superiority and providing support to their troops.
farseer(1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#2021%E2%80%9...
In terms of numbers according to the Wikipedia article they have about 650 air planes and ~300 helicopter's.
Thats a solid fighting force for a relatively small country.
Russia as lots of tools - missiles and such that are good at destroying buildings.
The problems in that Putin understands that the cities in Ukraine have value. He is trying to take them over with minimal destruction to the buildings at least right now. That way he could move his people with with out needed to rebuild.
In terms of numbers according to the Wikipedia article they have about 650 air planes and ~300 helicopter's.
Thats a solid fighting force for a relatively small country.
Russia as lots of tools - missiles and such that are good at destroying buildings.
The problems in that Putin understands that the cities in Ukraine have value. He is trying to take them over with minimal destruction to the buildings at least right now. That way he could move his people with with out needed to rebuild.
> they have about 650 air planes and ~300 helicopter's.
the question is how many of them are operational.
the question is how many of them are operational.
[deleted]
There's around 40 million people that might have a problem with that.
Yeah I can't help but wonder if Putin is trying to run a playbook that worked in parts of Georgia and "worked" in Chechnya (eventually remaining Russian territory, at great cost), but doesn't scale to major Ukranian cities.
Russia's only possible 'winning' outcome at this point is to subjugate and murder huge numbers of Ukrainians under a brutal police state, if Putin wants to hold most of the population centers. It'll take a very long time before they'll stop fighting back, Russia will have to debase the culture (they might try it China style, bring in a lot Russian citizens to live in those cities and begin a full, forced transformation, while you violently try to strip away Ukrainian culture).
It sure seems like Putin expected them to capitulate quickly and become largely docile before the occupying Russian soldiers while a new government is installed. Not much else explains their approach thus far other than that (their supply provisioning was clearly built for a very short conflict).
If Russia doesn't go for the full brutal police state approach, they'll hemorrhage with any typical occupation and will have to leave, and any new system they attempt to install and leave behind will be toppled rapidly (the Russians will have to keep sending forces in).
It sure seems like Putin expected them to capitulate quickly and become largely docile before the occupying Russian soldiers while a new government is installed. Not much else explains their approach thus far other than that (their supply provisioning was clearly built for a very short conflict).
If Russia doesn't go for the full brutal police state approach, they'll hemorrhage with any typical occupation and will have to leave, and any new system they attempt to install and leave behind will be toppled rapidly (the Russians will have to keep sending forces in).
I agree, that's the only thing they know how to do efficiently:
> If Russia doesn't go for the full brutal police state approach
Ukrainians are used to living in a democracy though, so it may not be easy/possible.
> bring in a lot Russian citizens to live in those cities and begin a full, forced transformation, while you violently try to strip away Ukrainian culture
That's what they did back in the 1930s in East Ukraine. They had to starve out/relocate the locals to make room for the "colonists". But doing this in the 21st century? I shudder to think how this would go down. And if they don't do this, anyone who comes over to settle will be met with extreme hostility.
I believe Putin lives in the past when it comes to understanding Ukraine and Ukrainians. It looks like he might actually believe (have believed?) his own propaganda.
> If Russia doesn't go for the full brutal police state approach
Ukrainians are used to living in a democracy though, so it may not be easy/possible.
> bring in a lot Russian citizens to live in those cities and begin a full, forced transformation, while you violently try to strip away Ukrainian culture
That's what they did back in the 1930s in East Ukraine. They had to starve out/relocate the locals to make room for the "colonists". But doing this in the 21st century? I shudder to think how this would go down. And if they don't do this, anyone who comes over to settle will be met with extreme hostility.
I believe Putin lives in the past when it comes to understanding Ukraine and Ukrainians. It looks like he might actually believe (have believed?) his own propaganda.
Yes, and looking forward he has the spotlight of the world agents him.
I do not think the question is wether or not Ukraine will fall to the Russian state. But if the Russian economy and current government will stay viable through the duration of the war.
Global sanctions applied correctly could cause a refugee crises in Russia population ~144 million. In short, Russian people need their basic needs met. Just like any human. They will go where that can happen more easily if their own country can not provide. 57,792 kilometres of Russian boarder length is ripe for exit.
I do not think the question is wether or not Ukraine will fall to the Russian state. But if the Russian economy and current government will stay viable through the duration of the war.
Global sanctions applied correctly could cause a refugee crises in Russia population ~144 million. In short, Russian people need their basic needs met. Just like any human. They will go where that can happen more easily if their own country can not provide. 57,792 kilometres of Russian boarder length is ripe for exit.
> 57,792 kilometres of Russian boarder length is ripe for exit.
“border”, and the vast majority of that is coastline, and the vast majority of the coastline is Arctic coastline, which is very much not ripe for exit.
“border”, and the vast majority of that is coastline, and the vast majority of the coastline is Arctic coastline, which is very much not ripe for exit.
It is rather simple, they didn't want to really destroy UAF, but were hoping after initial attack that a lot of them would surrender and switch side, as there is a lot of unhappiness in Ukraine over how they treat Russians, right wingers and pro-nazi groups with guns.
So they expected a lot of infrastructure will be available for them to take over. As we know, this didn't happen and now they have to destroy it. Honestly this is not good for Ukrainians as they will now suffer for real.
I found this site provides somewhat better analysis of situation, as well as The Hill and Breaking Points for example.
http://www.iswresearch.org/
So they expected a lot of infrastructure will be available for them to take over. As we know, this didn't happen and now they have to destroy it. Honestly this is not good for Ukrainians as they will now suffer for real.
I found this site provides somewhat better analysis of situation, as well as The Hill and Breaking Points for example.
http://www.iswresearch.org/
Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way...
It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local resistance.
I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences.
I can only imagine that the "pro-civilian" policy is part of a plan to eventually install a pro-Russia government that has some semblance of consent from the people.
But I cannot fathom how they expect that suzerainty to operate in the face of mass popular resistance.
Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?
Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry.
We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b).