Ask HN: How are world leaders able to visit Ukraine?
16 comments
The Russian armed forces do not have control of or indeed the ability to control Kyiv’s airspace. They spectacularly failed to take the city in their first assault and even at that time were unable to gain air superiority. Since then they have retreated out of AA and artillery range of Kyiv, and the reported S-series air defense batteries defending the capital have increased. Simply put, Russia has no real say over who goes to Kyiv. Ukraine is a big country, and they have been beaten back to frontlines that are quite far from Kyiv.
The several posts here which imply the Russians are choosing not to interfere grant them more military competence than they have demonstrated - and are ignorant of the war’s present geography.
The several posts here which imply the Russians are choosing not to interfere grant them more military competence than they have demonstrated - and are ignorant of the war’s present geography.
Just 4 hours ago there were air sirens over both Odessa and Kyiv caused by incoming Cruise missiles. https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-june-kyiv2324-red-alert-aer...
On top of what everyone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if either a) Russia had some way of know who was on what plane coming into Kiev, or b) there is a back channel of communications to Russia letting them know a head of state is coming in.
Just like people in the north of israel drinking coffe after work while there’s rocket attack from Gaza in the south.
Some territories are more/less dangerous than the others
Some territories are more/less dangerous than the others
I can only offer speculation. During those visits you mentioned, combat was taking place far (for some definition of distance) away from the place of visit, which sets the base risk. I understand that NATO has fairly good intelligence on all troop movements in the area which further quantifies the actual risk. Lastly: a prominent casualty might sway public support further in Ukraine's favour which probably isn't in Russia's interest.
Support would be the least of their worries. Triggering a direct NATO response would mean fighting first class armies, not their deprecated weapon systems.
> Triggering a direct NATO response would mean fighting first class armies
Agreed. However a political casulty probably would not provoke a military response, yet.
Agreed. However a political casulty probably would not provoke a military response, yet.
Historically, political leader assassinations have triggered wars or military responses. What would be the difference in this case?
I suspect the death of the German Chancellor or French President, caused by a direct attack by Russia, wouldn’t be taken lightly.
I suspect the death of the German Chancellor or French President, caused by a direct attack by Russia, wouldn’t be taken lightly.
> Historically, political leader assassinations have triggered wars or military responses
Because everyone involved was looking for a pretext to war. So far NATO members shy away from confrontation.
Because everyone involved was looking for a pretext to war. So far NATO members shy away from confrontation.
The main fronts are in the east and south, not Kiev. The impression I get is that Russia either lacks the airpower to or doesn't want to conduct the war like the US would, so it hasn't been bombing cities it's not actively trying to take. They've occassionally sent missiles at Kiev as "warnings", though. Maybe they think Zelensky will be under more pressure to negotiate/capitulate if the west remains relatively peaceful?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/29/russia-carries...
Warnings dont kill civilians. Russia runs regular Kalibr missile strikes on Kyiv and Odessa, they have 6 subs in the theatre. Then there are Iskander launches from Belgorod.
Warnings dont kill civilians. Russia runs regular Kalibr missile strikes on Kyiv and Odessa, they have 6 subs in the theatre. Then there are Iskander launches from Belgorod.
There are holiday package deals on the market for Kiev [1]
[1] https://www.lastminute.com/holidays/ukraine/kiev
[1] https://www.lastminute.com/holidays/ukraine/kiev
Some arent taking real risks at all. Putin would not even dream of killing its biggest EU ally Scholz for example.
Assassinating visiting heads of state would most likely mean war.
Or at least a much higher involvement of their respective countries in the conflict.
Or at least a much higher involvement of their respective countries in the conflict.
I would imagine it's simply too risky. Can someone please explain why they're taking such risks, or why the risks are in fact smaller than they appear. Thanks!