Residential building struck by a missile in southwestern Kyiv Saturday morning(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Residential building struck by a missile in southwestern Kyiv Saturday morning
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1497607423594536961
271 comments
That kind of damage would
not be caused by an AA missile.
Not only is it small (like you pointed out) AA missiles also tend to focus on fragmentation damage (expanding metal rings, directed frag etc).
Source: I used to be an explosives expert in the military.
Edit: Completely forgot to mention fuzing systems. This missile detonated on contact with the building. I have yet to come across an AA missile that detonates on contact with an object. All (effective) AA missiles use proximity sensors (radar, thermal, etc) to detonate near their target.
Also, if it was a misfire, most modern missiles have fail safes that disable the detonation of the main charge in case of an accidental firing.
Again, I could be wrong and this could be an AA missile, but all signs point to no; it isn’t.
Not only is it small (like you pointed out) AA missiles also tend to focus on fragmentation damage (expanding metal rings, directed frag etc).
Source: I used to be an explosives expert in the military.
Edit: Completely forgot to mention fuzing systems. This missile detonated on contact with the building. I have yet to come across an AA missile that detonates on contact with an object. All (effective) AA missiles use proximity sensors (radar, thermal, etc) to detonate near their target.
Also, if it was a misfire, most modern missiles have fail safes that disable the detonation of the main charge in case of an accidental firing.
Again, I could be wrong and this could be an AA missile, but all signs point to no; it isn’t.
It could be a Russian S-13 unguided rocket [0] used by Su-25 close air support airplane. They detonate on impact and have up to 33 kg (73 lbs) warhead that can cause the damage seen on the photo.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket
EDIT: typos
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket
EDIT: typos
Lots of "explosives experts" coming out on HN.
Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd caution everyone during this time to take what they see online with a grain of salt. It's propaganda season.
Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd caution everyone during this time to take what they see online with a grain of salt. It's propaganda season.
You’re free to chime in with your own thoughts. Just don’t bother with the ad hominem stuff.
Don't bother with hunterb123, this user (hunterb123) has a consistent track record of posting patently unreasonable comments on a variety of different topics.
I know my comment is ad hominem, but track records count for something, and while they have no bearing on the value of an argument, they sure should affect your degree of suspicion and scrutiny of said argument.
I know my comment is ad hominem, but track records count for something, and while they have no bearing on the value of an argument, they sure should affect your degree of suspicion and scrutiny of said argument.
Fact.
That was my own thought. It wasn't an attack at you, just a PSA to think about what you see online.
Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning.
--
I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument.
Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.
Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning.
--
I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument.
Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.
jacquesm(1)
[deleted]
That's a lot of damage against a reinforced concrete structure for an anti-air weapon. I think it's at least as likely to be an impact from an air-to-surface weapon, which would also have solid propellent. The flight profile looks much more consistent with a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft launch than a surface-to-air launch (especially since, as you mentioned, it's clearly in the early-ish stages of flight). A Buk launch could be vaguely plausible (the Strela series has VERY small warheads), but I don't see the S-300 having that kind of failure mode early in flight.
As you said though, the full picture will come out later. Hopefully they'll find some identifiable weapon fragments eventually.
As you said though, the full picture will come out later. Hopefully they'll find some identifiable weapon fragments eventually.
It clearly wasn't a MANPAD. 70 kg warhead of Buk M1 can do that much damage.
I think this refers to the same incident (from a pro-Russia twitter account):
https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059
Russia MOD: “In attempts of repelling a rocket attack on the military infrastructure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, failure occurred in the missile guidance system of a Ukrainian AF Buk-M1 medium-range air defense system and the missile hit the corner of a residential building."
https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059
Russia MOD: “In attempts of repelling a rocket attack on the military infrastructure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, failure occurred in the missile guidance system of a Ukrainian AF Buk-M1 medium-range air defense system and the missile hit the corner of a residential building."
I was curious what "MLRS" was, and it turns out there's a product page for it, only missing its "Add to Cart" button: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/m270.html
No, this is one of those where the button says "Contact Us for a free quote".
These things don't have a set price. They have a price of "How much can you afford?"
These things don't have a set price. They have a price of "How much can you afford?"
> They have a price of "How much can you afford?"
That's actually a "normal" question when thinking of it in terms of one saas company to another, but I actually think that question is almost nonsensical when thinking of it as a company selling to a major government. "Err, what is this 'afford' word you use? I do not think it means what you think it does."
That's actually a "normal" question when thinking of it in terms of one saas company to another, but I actually think that question is almost nonsensical when thinking of it as a company selling to a major government. "Err, what is this 'afford' word you use? I do not think it means what you think it does."
let me rephrase then...
"How much can we charge to ensure we are not leaving money on the table?"
'How much can you afford' has a deeper meaning. It's not how much money is in your wallet definition of "afford". It's more like how high can we push that number before your backside no longer clinches. It's a sales person's wet dream situation. It was never meant to be understood as "we can't afford your asking price, so give us a lower rate'.
The overall missed point is that there is no set price. The prices are negotiated per purchaser.
"How much can we charge to ensure we are not leaving money on the table?"
'How much can you afford' has a deeper meaning. It's not how much money is in your wallet definition of "afford". It's more like how high can we push that number before your backside no longer clinches. It's a sales person's wet dream situation. It was never meant to be understood as "we can't afford your asking price, so give us a lower rate'.
The overall missed point is that there is no set price. The prices are negotiated per purchaser.
Holy cow, good find. Thanks for posting this - this is darned interesting.
Huh, didn't know it was trademarked!
It’s not, it’s a generic term.
This is the M270 system which was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to meet the US Army’s Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) requirement. It was just a way of naming the requirement, kind of like “JSF”, and it stuck.
At the time rocket launchers were most commonly referred to as Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRL) and were mostly simple truck-based variants.
However MLRS had been used to refer to the capability by others in the past and it was never trademarked or limited to the US requirement and the M270. Over time it became common to refer to any modern integrated multiple rocket launcher as an MLRS, leaving the MRL naming only for less sophisticated types.
This is the M270 system which was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to meet the US Army’s Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) requirement. It was just a way of naming the requirement, kind of like “JSF”, and it stuck.
At the time rocket launchers were most commonly referred to as Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRL) and were mostly simple truck-based variants.
However MLRS had been used to refer to the capability by others in the past and it was never trademarked or limited to the US requirement and the M270. Over time it became common to refer to any modern integrated multiple rocket launcher as an MLRS, leaving the MRL naming only for less sophisticated types.
I thought so as well!
'MLRS is a registered trademark of Lockheed Martin Corporation.'
https://trademarks.justia.com/759/79/mlrs-75979459.html
But for some reason as trademark class 28, toys and sporting goods, with the statement 'toys, namely scale models of military vehicles'.
After some searching: apparently, they mean this:
https://www.brickmania.com/mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-syste...
Trademarks only apply to their registered class—did they seriously trademark the term just to limit who could sell toys named with it?
'MLRS is a registered trademark of Lockheed Martin Corporation.'
https://trademarks.justia.com/759/79/mlrs-75979459.html
But for some reason as trademark class 28, toys and sporting goods, with the statement 'toys, namely scale models of military vehicles'.
After some searching: apparently, they mean this:
https://www.brickmania.com/mlrs-multiple-launch-rocket-syste...
Trademarks only apply to their registered class—did they seriously trademark the term just to limit who could sell toys named with it?
Huh, well I stand corrected.
That is quite a bizarre trademark and I didn't expect it.
That is quite a bizarre trademark and I didn't expect it.
Ah, they do also have trademarks for the military use and for the full phrase, just realized I stopped searching when I found the first one.
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=mlrs
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=multiple+launch+rocke...
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=mlrs
https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=multiple+launch+rocke...
Thanks for this, again I stand corrected.
I'm amazed that they were granted those trademarks. As I said, MLRS has become a very generic term and from the start it was a US Army name, not invented by Lockheed-Martin.
I'm amazed that they were granted those trademarks. As I said, MLRS has become a very generic term and from the start it was a US Army name, not invented by Lockheed-Martin.
Even if it was a Ukrainian missile launch gone wrong, Russia still bears responsibility since it was only launched because Russia invaded.
You may well be right about all of that. And then you will have to consider that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine this would not have happened regardless of which party fired the rocket. You can take it as read that Ukrainians would not willfully take out their own apartment buildings.
So whatever the direct cause the responsibility for all this lies with the Russians.
So whatever the direct cause the responsibility for all this lies with the Russians.
Not all of it. If there isn't some responsibility on proper operations of munitions then you're saying it's okay for them to keep blowing up apt buildings on accident because Ruskies are there.
This should be remembered, those responsible in its operation should be reprimanded, and those civilians and their families should be compensated by the Ukrainian government. It should not be used as propaganda, it should be admitted as a mistake.
This should be remembered, those responsible in its operation should be reprimanded, and those civilians and their families should be compensated by the Ukrainian government. It should not be used as propaganda, it should be admitted as a mistake.
Munitions can and do fail, rockets can and do go off territory.
Taking into account how the Russians handled MH17, as a Dutch person I may be a bit biased but I think this is wholly on them.
Russia is responsible, no matter how you want to dress it up. RCA. Or do you actually believe that reparations payments take into account which party did the damage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
Taking into account how the Russians handled MH17, as a Dutch person I may be a bit biased but I think this is wholly on them.
Russia is responsible, no matter how you want to dress it up. RCA. Or do you actually believe that reparations payments take into account which party did the damage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
Anti-aircraft weapons are inherently dangerous to the cities they protect. Shells are fired upward and many follow a ballistic path back down to earth, missiles are fired and quite often miss. Successfully deployed weapons cause airplanes, and all their fuel and ordnance, to fall out of the sky onto the landscape below. All of this is understood by the militaries who rely on these weapons.
These are just the basic facts. No special expertise needed, of the sort the "I can tell what kind of missile this was by observing the smoke it makes" guy must possess. Shifting moral responsibility for collateral damage from the aggressor to the defender based on the limitations of the defender's arsenal does not seem right.
These are just the basic facts. No special expertise needed, of the sort the "I can tell what kind of missile this was by observing the smoke it makes" guy must possess. Shifting moral responsibility for collateral damage from the aggressor to the defender based on the limitations of the defender's arsenal does not seem right.
If you zoom out far enough, you could also blame Nato for this whole shitshow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Only if you believe another pile of Russian propaganda.
Ah yes, the “NATO will deploy nukes in direct vicinity of Moscow”, completely demolished by the fact that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are already NATO members on border with Russia and just as close to Moscow.
Now the only question remains: are you spreading this propaganda intentionally?
Edit: following guidelines
Now the only question remains: are you spreading this propaganda intentionally?
Edit: following guidelines
You, of course, is educated enough to remember that whole Caribbean crisis was in response to US placing nukes in Turkey.
gosh, it's so hard to be respectful here...
your argument is:
1. US deployed nukes to Turkey, 2. to which USSR responded symmetrically by attempting to deploy nukes in Cuba, 3. to which US responded with blockade 4. and therefore Russian invasion to Ukraine is justified 5. because NATO may deploy nukes in Ukraine
4. simply doesn't follow from previous 3 points because the assumption in 5. is incorrect in three ways:
1. Ukraine is not in NATO so NATO doesn't have the capability to deploy nukes there 2. If NATO needed nukes close to Moscow - they ALREADY HAVE where to do that - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland 3. US was responding with blockade to ACTIVE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS of nukes, which isn't happening in Ukraine
your argument is:
1. US deployed nukes to Turkey, 2. to which USSR responded symmetrically by attempting to deploy nukes in Cuba, 3. to which US responded with blockade 4. and therefore Russian invasion to Ukraine is justified 5. because NATO may deploy nukes in Ukraine
4. simply doesn't follow from previous 3 points because the assumption in 5. is incorrect in three ways:
1. Ukraine is not in NATO so NATO doesn't have the capability to deploy nukes there 2. If NATO needed nukes close to Moscow - they ALREADY HAVE where to do that - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland 3. US was responding with blockade to ACTIVE DEPLOYMENT PROCESS of nukes, which isn't happening in Ukraine
No, I never said it’s justified. More over, this war is highly unpopular in Russia itself (dictatorship countries can be engaged in unpopular wars). But to understand it you need to look at it from Putin’s perspective: “NATO is explicitly was anti-Soviet, and now is anti-Russian organization. It continues to rapidly expand right next to Russia’s borders. It is a security threat. It deployed nukes in close proximity in the past.” The point is that something unjustified from your perspective is justified from Putin’s perspective.
What Putin's perspective is doesn't really matter though, he will do whatever he wants to do for whatever misguided/crazy reasoning is going on in his head. In the end the only thing that matters is how the rest of the world reacts.
Letting a megalomaniacal dictator that has clearly lost command of his senses run amok, especially when in control of a large nuclear arsenal is a risk we can not really afford, and appeasing such a person will only feed into the cycle of demands.
Letting a megalomaniacal dictator that has clearly lost command of his senses run amok, especially when in control of a large nuclear arsenal is a risk we can not really afford, and appeasing such a person will only feed into the cycle of demands.
> In the end the only thing that matters is how the rest of the world reacts.
But what exactly do you propose?
But what exactly do you propose?
> It continues to rapidly expand right next to Russia’s borders
this is bullshit. NATO is not expanding, NATO is not the actor that is able to perform that action, rather it's emergent property of sovereign countries choosing to join NATO.
So who is Putin to tell what sovereign countries can or cannot do? If he's so unhappy with a choice that sovereign country is making with regard to joining a defensive alliance, maybe he should offer something better instead and not behave like a crazy lunatic dictator?
There is nothing valuable in "look at it from Putin's perspective" argument when his perspective is tyrannical.
this is bullshit. NATO is not expanding, NATO is not the actor that is able to perform that action, rather it's emergent property of sovereign countries choosing to join NATO.
So who is Putin to tell what sovereign countries can or cannot do? If he's so unhappy with a choice that sovereign country is making with regard to joining a defensive alliance, maybe he should offer something better instead and not behave like a crazy lunatic dictator?
There is nothing valuable in "look at it from Putin's perspective" argument when his perspective is tyrannical.
That last sentence does not improve your comment.
Yes it does. These people need to be ostracized.
Indeed, but it does break the guidelines and that can be weaponized against the poster.
the last question is the most critical part of my comment. it's war and everybody who is malicious - is my enemy that has to be eliminated by any means necessary.
I think something to keep in mind here too is that whether that was a Russian missile or not (I expect it was, but grant that it might have been friendly fire), it's a certainty it wouldn't have been fired if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine.
With the amount of equipment both sides are using that are the exact same (save for a swipe of IR paint) I can't imagine how much blue-on-blue incidents are happening right now
The 2014 conflict had one side tie yellow scraps of cloth around their arms to make them somewhat distinguishable.
I'm seeing Ukrainians using yellow/green tapes while Russians are using white/red. Russians are also painting 'Z', 'V' and 'O' on their vehicles. Z being from Russia and V from Belarus.
I was wondering what the Z meant and after searching other people would too, and there were multiple theories. One of it was that Z stood for the main target - Zelenskyy. But that was just as likely as the other theories, but now that you said there are also V and O do it is for his full name: Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy then that's def it.
Not sure if I can add some info that helps, but looking at the footage, I'm seeing trajectory coming from west, even south west, it's big, 5-6 m, travelling around 1200 m/s - so, mach 3-4 (based on 25fps), angle (in the actual image from cctv footage) starts at 39 degrees and dips further down to 43 degrees (in my crude analysis 90deg would be straight down), I guess that sounds like a Buk then, but I'd love anyones feedback. Will add tho, that even if this was a stray from Ukrane's forces, there are russian missles just sitting around in the streets, so they're not exactly being precise with their targeting, I'm just interested in knowing what is exactly the truth, don't care so much the implications in short term, as op said all noise for a long time, but figuring it out helps interpret what you see in the news.
Edit: Oh, assuming we all know location - NE of Sikorsky Int Airport, next to novus supermarket.
Edit: Oh, assuming we all know location - NE of Sikorsky Int Airport, next to novus supermarket.
> my second bet is that it belongs to Ukrainian Military since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted.
A widely circulated video showed a Ukrainian jet that was shot down in Kyiv at night by Russian AA less than 48 hours ago. The odds are not great on your second bet.
A widely circulated video showed a Ukrainian jet that was shot down in Kyiv at night by Russian AA less than 48 hours ago. The odds are not great on your second bet.
[deleted]
Why do you assume the missile is AA and not air-to-ground or ground-to-ground?
(genuine question - are there not other kinds of missiles in use?)
(genuine question - are there not other kinds of missiles in use?)
It's been filmed from several angles, these videos were circulating in Telegram previously. No plane or helicopter was seen or heard around. Unguided air-to-ground missiles fired from helicopters don't usually have that kind of thick white smoke, and also fired in salvos. (I don't think a pilot even has an option to fire just one)
Ground to ground is either MLRS (doesn't look like it at all) or ballistic (absolutely not)
Ground to ground is either MLRS (doesn't look like it at all) or ballistic (absolutely not)
Rockets get fired in salvos. Air to ground missiles are regularly fired individually. Think the US maveric or hellfire lines. "Missile" generally means a guided rocket. "Rockets" are generally unguided, although there are laser-guided FFARs that are still called rockets.
Aren't there a variety of man- and vehicle-launched antitank missiles in use? Do they look substantially different?
The missile in point descends in a straight line - that means either the launch happened in the air or it was boosted into the air upon the ground launch.
AT missiles are typically obturated, don't have that amount of smoke either, and won't cause that kind of damage (they are designed to leave a small hole)
AT missiles are typically obturated, don't have that amount of smoke either, and won't cause that kind of damage (they are designed to leave a small hole)
SAMs would come from Ukranian defense in Kyiv and not Russian forces, right? Or could both sides have them there?
With the amount of chaos happening around I don't think anybody knows for sure. It's not taken yet, that's all I know from my brother who lives in the neighboring area (he has more important things to do than missile identification though...)
There are videos today with Russian Pantsir-S anti-defense in Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903
This is complex. There is plenty of evidence of false flag and other trickery going on from the Russian side including changing into the uniform of the Ukranian forces before attacking vehicles and such.
How do we know these aren't Ukranian intelligence playing Russian? How can you be so certain of anything?
jacquesm(1)
The Russians have deployed SAMs in Belarus and has an operating radius that covers almost the entire theater.
According to Rob Lee's twitter it appears Grand Parent's deduction is correct because previously a Ukranian Su-27 that blew up in Kiev was being falsely reported as Russian jet.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864
I have to note how difficult it is right now. "Ukranian side" (it is not clear who the original disseminator network is) appear to be using footages of ARMA 3 and DCS: World overlayed with voice and artifacts from Twitter's compression algorithms really can fool many to believe Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance.
The latest disinformation seems to be a seemingly staged conversation between a Ukranian driver and a Russian APC squad. I don't know who stands to benefit from these disinformation campaign but :
1) Ukranian side can raise morale by selling perception that Russia is poorly equipped and suffering from poor morale.
2) Russian side would purposefully allow such disinformation to spread for an element of surprise, might even be the one manufacturing it.
It is probably a combination of the two but from today's executive order from Putin to launch an all out offensive from all direction will be telling.
Send in the poorly equipped, inexperienced troops in first to feign false sense of security and send in your regular well equipped army.
White noise on all sides and I am noting too, just how difficult it is to get the real story but it seems Twitter makes this extra difficult and its not clear who is leaking these fake disinformation stories and to whom it is aimed to ultimately benefit.
We simply do not know what is happening but I am leaning towards #2, today's encirclement and seige of Mariupol, which was long touted as putting up effective resistance by pro-Ukraine twitter accounts, seems to have collapsed in a matter of hours, sort of like the "Ghost of Kiev" myth
According to Rob Lee's twitter it appears Grand Parent's deduction is correct because previously a Ukranian Su-27 that blew up in Kiev was being falsely reported as Russian jet.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864
I have to note how difficult it is right now. "Ukranian side" (it is not clear who the original disseminator network is) appear to be using footages of ARMA 3 and DCS: World overlayed with voice and artifacts from Twitter's compression algorithms really can fool many to believe Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance.
The latest disinformation seems to be a seemingly staged conversation between a Ukranian driver and a Russian APC squad. I don't know who stands to benefit from these disinformation campaign but :
1) Ukranian side can raise morale by selling perception that Russia is poorly equipped and suffering from poor morale.
2) Russian side would purposefully allow such disinformation to spread for an element of surprise, might even be the one manufacturing it.
It is probably a combination of the two but from today's executive order from Putin to launch an all out offensive from all direction will be telling.
Send in the poorly equipped, inexperienced troops in first to feign false sense of security and send in your regular well equipped army.
White noise on all sides and I am noting too, just how difficult it is to get the real story but it seems Twitter makes this extra difficult and its not clear who is leaking these fake disinformation stories and to whom it is aimed to ultimately benefit.
We simply do not know what is happening but I am leaning towards #2, today's encirclement and seige of Mariupol, which was long touted as putting up effective resistance by pro-Ukraine twitter accounts, seems to have collapsed in a matter of hours, sort of like the "Ghost of Kiev" myth
I think it's absolutely splendid the way a 17 day old account with just 2 posts here, both about the Ukraine invasion, has such insight about the deceptive propaganda uses of simulation games! Could you please show us some examples?
> According to Rob Lee's twitter it appears Grand Parent's deduction is correct because previously a Ukranian Su-27 that blew up in Kiev was being falsely reported as Russian jet.
> https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864
It's Russian Su-27. Text is in Russian language on the plane. Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian language only for 20+ years.
> https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864
It's Russian Su-27. Text is in Russian language on the plane. Ukrainian army uses Ukrainian language only for 20+ years.
https://www.goodfon.com/wallpaper/shlem-istrebitel-fonar-ukr...
all text is in russian on that plane, in fact, you can see the same text on that picture (top right corner) and the picture from the tweet.
all text is in russian on that plane, in fact, you can see the same text on that picture (top right corner) and the picture from the tweet.
Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian use the Cyrillic alphabet and I don't trust a random burner twitter account making that claim.
Rob Lee, who has been independently reporting about Ukraine since 2014, is fairly credible and does not appear to stand to gain anything from accusations that he is pro-Russian
Rob Lee, who has been independently reporting about Ukraine since 2014, is fairly credible and does not appear to stand to gain anything from accusations that he is pro-Russian
Ukrainians use Ukrainian alphabet and Ukrainian language. Russians are using Russian alphabet and Russian language. WTF?
jacquesm(1)
S-300 warhead is 130-180 kg (different modifications)
> since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted.
what do you mean with "taken"? who takes what?
what do you mean with "taken"? who takes what?
in this context it would be Russia takes Ukrainian military equipment to disarm resistance
Out of genuine interest, how do you know so much about this stuff?
I used to work in aerospace, but not in defense so I don't actually know much, hence the warning in the end. (that's a problem with confident-looking comments on the net - people are always assuming you are competent when you're just a random guy speculating on the limited knowledge and information)
Its alright to say you are speculating without drawing parallels to misinformation. They are not the same thing.
Does it matter where the source is?
This would not have happened in an alternative universe where Putin is a good leader who was actually trying to improve the lives of Russians.
This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well.
This would not have happened in an alternative universe where Putin is a good leader who was actually trying to improve the lives of Russians.
This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well.
While I agree with the sentiment that at the end of the day none of this would've happened without the Russian aggression, it does still matter because intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. I'm not saying that's what happened here but let's be clear that actions have serious meaning in war. This line of reasoning reminds me of the idea that we shouldn't care about the origin of covid because it's out there and the origin isn't going to make much difference at this point. But I think a lot of people do care about these details because they might have great historical significance.
But the accusation is not that Russia did this intentionally. It is most likely an accident, an accident caused by Russia's invasion. Russia is responsible for the death of these civilians even if the missile came from Ukrainian equipment.
USA and its Nato allies have committed huge number of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan without any repercussions. And USA does not allow its soldiers to be put on trial in international war courts so what moral authority do these courts have. Mostly they are used against poor african countries.
Who is going to enforce the war crime penalties?
The ICC [1]. Like everything it's not perfect. But this might be in their jurisdiction. I don't know.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-c...
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-c...
It is, because Ukraine, while not a state party to the Rome Statute, has acceded voluntarily to ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory.
OTOH, ICC has no practical power to bring Russian personnel (other than those captured in combat by Ukraine) before it for trial, and the US “invade the Hague” law on the ICC might prove a model for Russia should the ICC gain custody of Russian personnel somehow.
OTOH, ICC has no practical power to bring Russian personnel (other than those captured in combat by Ukraine) before it for trial, and the US “invade the Hague” law on the ICC might prove a model for Russia should the ICC gain custody of Russian personnel somehow.
The truth matters.
Really like this comment. Root cause = aggressor actions.
>"This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well."
It is already disaster. Putin has basically threw Russia back to a stone age. I've no idea how long it'll take for him to go one or the other way and for Russia to recover back to anything resembling normal life.
It is already disaster. Putin has basically threw Russia back to a stone age. I've no idea how long it'll take for him to go one or the other way and for Russia to recover back to anything resembling normal life.
The man seems to love Stalin; it'd be better if he loved Khrushchev.
Khrushchev was no match to Stalin. But he did not hesitate to fire on striking workers killing scores and later sentencing some to death and many to extended imprisonment. So I think as a human he was the same POS. Luckily for the people of USSR on a smaller scale.
The Russians say: It would not have happened when Ukraine was not turned into a potential NATO country.
The Russians genuinely see it as a security issue. Ukraine is becoming a threat once part of the NATO. In some ways understandable. In the end we are talking about two enemies ,the west and Russia having a pretty serious conflict. Neither is good or bad. Unfortunately propoganda is extremely efficient these days. Either side have full support.
The reasons why there isn’t actually another perspective like this:
Everything you said was true years ago as well, a form of it was even true during the Cuban missile crisis, as the US had missiles at the border of the soviet union too, there is nothing unique or newfound geopolitically about the timing here to support this “security issue”.
Russia creates contexts for invasion. It hands passports out to pro-Russian residents in parts of Ukraine, and then invades to “protects its citizens” so that it could theoretically be judged the same way as other countries that do interventions.
Adding all of that to an ideological retcon from 100 years ago, and all you have left is an irrational madman who wants to be in the footnote of a history book as attempting empire rebuilding.
Putin’s own advisors are afraid of him and cant give him a straight answer about anything, they're afraid of the international consequences of this as well.
None of this supports the idea of a leader doing anything in the interest of Russians or the concept of a Russian empire.
We’ll never even get to know what an independent Donetsk and Luhansk even means. Microstates? Districts of Russia?
This is just all way off and a mess. Its come down to just choosing a side and watching the results unfold.
Everything you said was true years ago as well, a form of it was even true during the Cuban missile crisis, as the US had missiles at the border of the soviet union too, there is nothing unique or newfound geopolitically about the timing here to support this “security issue”.
Russia creates contexts for invasion. It hands passports out to pro-Russian residents in parts of Ukraine, and then invades to “protects its citizens” so that it could theoretically be judged the same way as other countries that do interventions.
Adding all of that to an ideological retcon from 100 years ago, and all you have left is an irrational madman who wants to be in the footnote of a history book as attempting empire rebuilding.
Putin’s own advisors are afraid of him and cant give him a straight answer about anything, they're afraid of the international consequences of this as well.
None of this supports the idea of a leader doing anything in the interest of Russians or the concept of a Russian empire.
We’ll never even get to know what an independent Donetsk and Luhansk even means. Microstates? Districts of Russia?
This is just all way off and a mess. Its come down to just choosing a side and watching the results unfold.
> The Russians say [...] NATO
Putin in his speech blamed Lenin for giving away the territory of the Russian empire in creating a Ukrainian Republic, and claimed that Ukraine is not a real country so does not deserve sovereignty. He later said its leaders are drug dealing Nazis, presumably including the Jewish Russian-speaking president.
Nothing the Russian state says about the origins of the conflict seems very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomaniacal imperial ambitions and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia.
Putin in his speech blamed Lenin for giving away the territory of the Russian empire in creating a Ukrainian Republic, and claimed that Ukraine is not a real country so does not deserve sovereignty. He later said its leaders are drug dealing Nazis, presumably including the Jewish Russian-speaking president.
Nothing the Russian state says about the origins of the conflict seems very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomaniacal imperial ambitions and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia.
> Nothing the Russians say about the origins of the conflict seem very credible. A more plausible origin is Putin’s megalomania and paranoid fear of being eventually displaced by a homegrown pro-Europe, pro-democracy movement in Russia.
Ideology seems to be part of it but Russian security concerns are part of it too. Suggesting that NATO expansion was a mistake is not the same thing as blaming this war on NATO.
Anyone who does blame NATO should ask themselves why Ukraine wanted to join in the first place (because the Ukrainians know the Russians won't respect their sovereignty).
Ideology seems to be part of it but Russian security concerns are part of it too. Suggesting that NATO expansion was a mistake is not the same thing as blaming this war on NATO.
Anyone who does blame NATO should ask themselves why Ukraine wanted to join in the first place (because the Ukrainians know the Russians won't respect their sovereignty).
Russia feels the same way about Poland, the Baltics and any other country that joined NATO after 1993 or so.
But none of that matters, it's just a figleaf to justify an attack, if not for 'NATO' then for some other bullshit reason.
But none of that matters, it's just a figleaf to justify an attack, if not for 'NATO' then for some other bullshit reason.
This comment is getting down voted pretty hard. Im not pro-Russia by any means, but I did take a minute to imagine what it would be like to live with (more?) missile silos pointing at me at the boarder of my country. I didn't have to think too long, you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
This pushes the justification for Putin's response away from "unprovoked and savage".
IMO I think the US is partially responsible for this crisis. We've never stopped expanding our influence, for better or worse. Perhaps we pushed a little too hard here.
</armchair>
(edit: changed pro-russia to pro-Putin. E2: Flipped again)
This pushes the justification for Putin's response away from "unprovoked and savage".
IMO I think the US is partially responsible for this crisis. We've never stopped expanding our influence, for better or worse. Perhaps we pushed a little too hard here.
</armchair>
(edit: changed pro-russia to pro-Putin. E2: Flipped again)
Your change from Russia to Putin is key here...
Is it? I didn't want to blame the whole of Russia when Putin has more authoritative powers over the countries decisions, quite unlike the US. I'll fix it regardless since this is a nuanced difference.
I actually liked your change from Russia to Putin so apologies for me not explaining and causing confusion and another edit. My point was that you were more accurate to say that Putin is feeling threatened, than Russia is. And this change has further implications on the validity of his stated reasons.
Nah, it is pretty clear that Russia goal is control of Ukraine. The only role membership in NATO play is that if that theoretically happened, it would be harder to attack Ukraine later on.
And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.
And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.
Of course they want to control Ukraine. They did for 100 years. Only recently they start losing market to western companies. That is the reason why there is a war now. Russia is losing ground. NATO is gaining ground. It is that simple.
The ignorance to think that the west doesn't want Ukraine being member of NATO is beyond strange. Of course they want. It brings enormous market to NATO land. all large businesses would vote yes to get Ukraine inside their sphere. Same for Russia. For them it is exactly the same.
Yeah, they suppressed their attempt to have state in 1917 and when communist regime and it's USSR ended, Ukraine finally had its independence.
Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
atlantas(9)
I suppose Ukraine invaded itself, too?
Founder and creative director of Bellingcat (definitely not pro-russian) advises being careful with this one:
> Some claims that the missile strike on the apartment building in Kyiv could be from a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile, so its still worth keeping an open mind about what munition was responsible.
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1497501462447984642
That's a good question, what happens with an anti-air missile if it fails to hit something in the sky? Does it disable itself before hitting ground?
Also, you can look at my comment history if you think I'm pro-russian.
> Some claims that the missile strike on the apartment building in Kyiv could be from a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile, so its still worth keeping an open mind about what munition was responsible.
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1497501462447984642
That's a good question, what happens with an anti-air missile if it fails to hit something in the sky? Does it disable itself before hitting ground?
Also, you can look at my comment history if you think I'm pro-russian.
> worth keeping an open mind about what munition was responsible.
Well, sure. But it is also worth keeping in mind that SAMs wouldn't be flying in the first place if Kyiv wasn't being attacked by Russians.
Well, sure. But it is also worth keeping in mind that SAMs wouldn't be flying in the first place if Kyiv wasn't being attacked by Russians.
> Also, you can look at my comment history if you think I'm pro-russian
It's a sad state of things where someone asking a legit question has to add this disclaimer.
As someone in an uninvolved third country, I don't understand why hackernews is cheering for one side: Politicians and diplomats executed some realpolitik type moves and it backfired into a hot war.
It's a sad state of things where someone asking a legit question has to add this disclaimer.
As someone in an uninvolved third country, I don't understand why hackernews is cheering for one side: Politicians and diplomats executed some realpolitik type moves and it backfired into a hot war.
> I don't understand why hackernews is cheering for one side
Because sometimes there is an actual good side and an actual evil side. Not all good and evil is relative.
Because sometimes there is an actual good side and an actual evil side. Not all good and evil is relative.
When it comes to something as vastly complicated as global politics, I disagree wholeheartedly.
That argument is what tyrants thrive on. Sometimes you need to decide.
I would argue that stifling debate with black and white thinking is more responsible for allowing tyrants to thrive.
The grandparent of this sub-thread was talking about "cheering for one side". That is a far far long way from "stifling debate".
I agree with your sentiments totally but no debate is being stifled. HN on the whole is supporting the side that the vast vast majority of the world is siding with. There are good reasons to in most people's minds.
Supporting one side and allowing others to disagree is compatible with no censorship.
We are seeing, however, that Russia is doing what China is doing and enacting stronger censorship. Is that a positive sign or not? I would say that it is a sign of a repressive regime.
A discussion is also different from a debate. Its an important difference in how you approach conversations online.
I agree with your sentiments totally but no debate is being stifled. HN on the whole is supporting the side that the vast vast majority of the world is siding with. There are good reasons to in most people's minds.
Supporting one side and allowing others to disagree is compatible with no censorship.
We are seeing, however, that Russia is doing what China is doing and enacting stronger censorship. Is that a positive sign or not? I would say that it is a sign of a repressive regime.
A discussion is also different from a debate. Its an important difference in how you approach conversations online.
Answering "why are you cheering for one side?" With "cuz the other side is evil" is stifling debate.
But this is geopolitics we're talking about: There isn't a good side and an evil side.
But this is geopolitics we're talking about: There isn't a good side and an evil side.
I'm sure Ukraine has done some bad things. But Russian invading is worse than anything Ukraine did, so most people on HN are mad at Russia.
>But this is geopolitics we're talking about: There isn't a good side and an evil side.
Are you stating that as an absolute fact? There's never been an evil side in global geopolitics? Is it possible for there to be an evil side in geopolitics in the future?
>But this is geopolitics we're talking about: There isn't a good side and an evil side.
Are you stating that as an absolute fact? There's never been an evil side in global geopolitics? Is it possible for there to be an evil side in geopolitics in the future?
Calling the other side evil is what tyrants thrive on.
I am absolutely happy to call the Russian government evil, I don't live too far away from Salisbury so it's not exactly a theoretical discussion.
I mean, Russians would have definitely called the West and Ukraine as evil in their domestic channels. No?
There's no good vs evil in international diplomacy.
There's no good vs evil in international diplomacy.
Do you have the same sentiment for Nazi's?
This isn't a sentiment.
The simplistic version of the Nazi's rise to power is that they did so by labelling Jews and other minorities as evil.
That reinforces my point. Doesn't it?
(And were the British any better? See: Bengal Famine)
The simplistic version of the Nazi's rise to power is that they did so by labelling Jews and other minorities as evil.
That reinforces my point. Doesn't it?
(And were the British any better? See: Bengal Famine)
What point? That there is no good or evil side?
> Calling the other side evil is what tyrants thrive on
Like world war 2. Very complex to decide between the Nazi's, the West, and Stalin.
History is written by the winners
Stalin wrote a lot of history after his victories. Yet he had to close his borders because everybody wanted to get out.
My family in law lived under the Soviets, while they were still "winners". You think they liked that regime? Please don't say stupid 1 liners and expect to sound smart.
My family in law lived under the Soviets, while they were still "winners". You think they liked that regime? Please don't say stupid 1 liners and expect to sound smart.
There's a yin-yang effect going on, certainly. But, taking this metaphor further, if you look at the taijitu, there is a predominantly yin side and a predominantly yang side.
And maybe over time they transform into one another (e.g. political parties trading tactics over hundreds of years).
But still, for a given moment in time, it's possible to point to the side that's doing the majority of the evil.
And maybe over time they transform into one another (e.g. political parties trading tactics over hundreds of years).
But still, for a given moment in time, it's possible to point to the side that's doing the majority of the evil.
From my uneducated perspective on the other side of the world, this looks like a mostly unilateral act of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. Is that not the case?
From my equally uneducated perspective, I understand that this started with the 2014 revolution that the Russian government calls a coup.
A conventional war several thousand kilometres away shouldn't affect me regardless of the outcome but media has been trying to project this as world war 3, more and more countries are seemingly getting involved (and GitHub issues are being created to block Russian users). Makes it scary.
A conventional war several thousand kilometres away shouldn't affect me regardless of the outcome but media has been trying to project this as world war 3, more and more countries are seemingly getting involved (and GitHub issues are being created to block Russian users). Makes it scary.
> A conventional war several thousand kilometres away shouldn't affect me
Think of it as sort of akin to the very early days of COVID-19. There were far more unknowns than known facts, it immediately became politicized which poisoned the discourse, and multiple historical precedents demonstrate how much worse it could have been. (And of course, it also isn't over...)
Today this is Russia attacking Ukraine. But Europe is deeply interconnected, war is definitionally out of control, and there are multiple historical precedents demonstrating how bad this can get.
I do hope your faith that this stays "just" a regional disaster holds true, but right now do not see reason to share it.
Think of it as sort of akin to the very early days of COVID-19. There were far more unknowns than known facts, it immediately became politicized which poisoned the discourse, and multiple historical precedents demonstrate how much worse it could have been. (And of course, it also isn't over...)
Today this is Russia attacking Ukraine. But Europe is deeply interconnected, war is definitionally out of control, and there are multiple historical precedents demonstrating how bad this can get.
I do hope your faith that this stays "just" a regional disaster holds true, but right now do not see reason to share it.
If you dont understand the impact that wars in east europe affect everyone’s life everywhere you havent paying attention to history since world war 2. Several thousand kilometres are basically next door.
Oh, please, since 1990 there were multiple wars in Europe and literally next door nobody gave a fuck about. Serbia/Kosovo, Bosnia, Moldova, Libya, Syria.
Putin is a madman that should have been deposed long time ago, but current media hysteria is on the next level.
Putin is a madman that should have been deposed long time ago, but current media hysteria is on the next level.
If Putin didn't control a few thousand nukes, this wouldn't be as newsworthy, for sure. Probably he wouldn't even try to invade Ukraine in that case.
Wow.
How does a coup in literally another country justify invading it? (Add: sorry, I should not have phrased it so sharply since you state it as an uneducated perspective.)
Funny how you could call it either a "revolution" or a "coup", and they both mean more or less the same thing, but "coup" delegitimizes it, while "revolution" legitimizes it.
Anyway, the revolution overthrew a pro-Russian, anti-EU president. So there you go.
Anyway, the revolution overthrew a pro-Russian, anti-EU president. So there you go.
Thanks for supporting my point. Additionally, 'coup' in my view has the connotations of a regime overthrow by a militant minority, which does not seem to have been the case.
Interestingly enough I had the same understanding as you and it appears to be wrong (unless the definition has changed as they seem to be wont to do in recent years). I was under the impression that a coup was when the military seized power from the civilian government and a revolution was when the civilian populace tore down the current government. This is the current definition that google returns and it does not support that understanding:
. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
And if you look at the Ukrainian resistance right now, it seems they prefer a democratically elected leader over a Russian puppet dictator. Strange, right?
>has been trying to project this as world war 3
I mean, Putin has made a number of nuclear and 'significant' threats in the past week. It shouldn't be surprising that this would concern a great number of people.
I mean, Putin has made a number of nuclear and 'significant' threats in the past week. It shouldn't be surprising that this would concern a great number of people.
Merem(1)
The recent history doesn't seem like it backfired into a hot war. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has to have been in planning and staging for at least several months.
It’s likely been at least a year in the making.
Troop build ups were noticed in March 2021.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Russo-Ukrainian_cr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Russo-Ukrainian_cr...
Operation like this takes years to plan and prepare, and if anything it comes surprisingly late, given that civil war continued for 8 years in Ukraine. You would think they would act sooner then risking losing Donabas to Ukrainians. My guess it was delayed by Covid.
That is a great point. I always figured that if this was going to happen that it would be at the moment when America was most confused, the transition period from one president to the next, but you are right, that coincided with COVID which may well have screwed up their timetable.
One dictatorship invaded a democratic country to reinstall a puppet dictator that the people kicked out.
I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck man?
I'm sorry, but what the actual fuck man?
Again, from my unparticipating 3rd country vantage point, both are either dictatorships and democratic countries depending on your standards.
From another comment here I learnt that there were targeted attacks on Russian population inside Ukraine and racist laws. Not something a democratic country would do (if true)
> that the people kicked out
People don't organically get together and _successfully_ kick out a regime without foreign support.
From another comment here I learnt that there were targeted attacks on Russian population inside Ukraine and racist laws. Not something a democratic country would do (if true)
> that the people kicked out
People don't organically get together and _successfully_ kick out a regime without foreign support.
You are parroting Russian propaganda here. I know Ukrainians personally, and the truth is very clear.
And the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is also clear.
> People don't organically get together and _successfully_ kick out a regime without foreign support.
Seems like they did, didn't they? And it also seems like they are kicking Russians ass right now, don't they?
If you cannot see the difference between the two then you don't want to see. Please show evidence of Ukrainians attacking other Russian speaking Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians presidents first language is Russian. So he's going to commit genocide against himself? Haha give me a break!
And the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is also clear.
> People don't organically get together and _successfully_ kick out a regime without foreign support.
Seems like they did, didn't they? And it also seems like they are kicking Russians ass right now, don't they?
If you cannot see the difference between the two then you don't want to see. Please show evidence of Ukrainians attacking other Russian speaking Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians presidents first language is Russian. So he's going to commit genocide against himself? Haha give me a break!
> I don't understand why hackernews is cheering for one side
Excuse me, what? How is that not blindingly clear who the aggressor is here?
Excuse me, what? How is that not blindingly clear who the aggressor is here?
Does hackernews take part in cheering a side in every other war too?
Like the Azerbaijan Armenia war that happened last year or the Saudi Yemani war sometime ago?
I'm really wondering why this one is different.
Like the Azerbaijan Armenia war that happened last year or the Saudi Yemani war sometime ago?
I'm really wondering why this one is different.
I just looked at your comment history. It's quite obvious what and who you represent so whataboutism and other discourse steering techniques are more than expected.
Yes, Russian trolls are present even here; we just shouldn't feed them.
Yes, Russian trolls are present even here; we just shouldn't feed them.
> I'm really wondering why this one is different.
It is the missing white woman syndrome applied to geopolitical conflicts.[1] A war or terrorist attack affecting North American and European countries is more important and deserving of constant attention than similar things happening elsewhere in the world.
[1] Missing white woman syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)
It is the missing white woman syndrome applied to geopolitical conflicts.[1] A war or terrorist attack affecting North American and European countries is more important and deserving of constant attention than similar things happening elsewhere in the world.
[1] Missing white woman syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)
You are wrong. It's about the escalation potential.
Scale and danger and consequences. Ukraine is a big country. Russia has nukes. It also has a huge territory, so anything significant happening in or to Russia has a high chance to be or to become important.
Also, this could be a test case watched by China for a possible invasion of Taiwan, as has been mentioned.
There also are a few more countries that Russia has thus far only targeted with rhetoric but could target for (re)annexation next, depending on their post mortem cost/benefit analysis of how it went in Ukraine once this is over.
It also shows how little the rest of the world can do when a nuke-owning nation just starts a war unilaterally.
Also, this could be a test case watched by China for a possible invasion of Taiwan, as has been mentioned.
There also are a few more countries that Russia has thus far only targeted with rhetoric but could target for (re)annexation next, depending on their post mortem cost/benefit analysis of how it went in Ukraine once this is over.
It also shows how little the rest of the world can do when a nuke-owning nation just starts a war unilaterally.
> A test case watched by China for a possible invasion of Taiwan
I saw this as a headline from several news websites already. So are you sure you weren't influenced by that?
Reality is that the Taiwan situation is very different from the Ukraine situation and China itself thinks of it that way.
> Russia has nukes.
India and Pakistan, TWO nuclear weapon weilding countries, had a brief air engagement a few years ago. Nothing on HN. No sides. No GitHub issues..
I saw this as a headline from several news websites already. So are you sure you weren't influenced by that?
Reality is that the Taiwan situation is very different from the Ukraine situation and China itself thinks of it that way.
> Russia has nukes.
India and Pakistan, TWO nuclear weapon weilding countries, had a brief air engagement a few years ago. Nothing on HN. No sides. No GitHub issues..
What's going on now in Ukraine is not brief.
You could call brief when Russia invaded the eastern parts of it in 2014.
Putin 3 days ago warned that any Western "interference" would have "consequences you never experienced in your history". Is Poland/Germany sending anti-tank and anti-air missiles in Ukraine now an "interference"?
You could call brief when Russia invaded the eastern parts of it in 2014.
Putin 3 days ago warned that any Western "interference" would have "consequences you never experienced in your history". Is Poland/Germany sending anti-tank and anti-air missiles in Ukraine now an "interference"?
> Is Poland/Germany sending anti-tank and anti-air missiles in Ukraine now an "interference"?
I think it doesn’t count as interference, according to arcane rules of international law. For example, during Cold War, US and Soviets would routinely openly arm combatants in their proxy war, and it didn’t count as actual offensive actions.
For comparison, many voices in US are calling for instituting a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. What that phrase means is they want NATO to commit to shoot down all Russian planes over Ukraine. NATO shooting down Russian aircraft will obviously will be taken as act of war by Russians.
I think it doesn’t count as interference, according to arcane rules of international law. For example, during Cold War, US and Soviets would routinely openly arm combatants in their proxy war, and it didn’t count as actual offensive actions.
For comparison, many voices in US are calling for instituting a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine. What that phrase means is they want NATO to commit to shoot down all Russian planes over Ukraine. NATO shooting down Russian aircraft will obviously will be taken as act of war by Russians.
AFAIK, they have had multiple engagements. The fact that they managed not to glass each other gives me some hope for humanity.
> Ukraine is a big country.
Yemen is too. https://upload.vaa.red/2hjyom#565284ae60ef9dfd699d3810c00600...
Yemen is too. https://upload.vaa.red/2hjyom#565284ae60ef9dfd699d3810c00600...
Because many people on HN have personal morality perhaps.
The conflict between Azeris and Armenians causes a lot of tragic death and displacement on both sides with no sign of permanent resolution, but is not imminently threatening to cause a direct fight between two nuclear powers or spark off a Europe-wide war.
If e.g. Russia occupies Ukraine and Ukrainian insurgents are supplied or based from Poland and Russians fire across the border, or if Russia/Turkey fire on each-other when a Russian warship tries to pass through the Bosporus, or if Russian warplanes get shot down over Lithuania on their way between Belarus and Kaliningrad, or if Russia responds to economic sanctions with large-scale cyber attacks against the UK or France, (or, or, or...) we could quickly end up in a situation with two great nuclear powers actively firing at each-other.
If e.g. Russia occupies Ukraine and Ukrainian insurgents are supplied or based from Poland and Russians fire across the border, or if Russia/Turkey fire on each-other when a Russian warship tries to pass through the Bosporus, or if Russian warplanes get shot down over Lithuania on their way between Belarus and Kaliningrad, or if Russia responds to economic sanctions with large-scale cyber attacks against the UK or France, (or, or, or...) we could quickly end up in a situation with two great nuclear powers actively firing at each-other.
if powerful countries / economies are attacked that have a very low appetite for any form of risk then the media will treat it differently. Also the sad thing is it's not about human casualties but how much wealth is lost. If everyone would have their wealth tied up in Azerbaijan then I bet a war there would be reported on very differently.
I guess HN treats it also differently because of the real risk to nuclear escalation.
I guess HN treats it also differently because of the real risk to nuclear escalation.
> Politicians and diplomats executed some realpolitik type moves and it backfired into a hot war.
This has been planned for months. It didn’t backfire into anything. Putin likely made up his mind weeks ago and there was nothing anyone could do. All of his demands were completely ludicrous, and either he knows it or he really has lost his mind.
> cheering for one side
Yes, in a completely unprovoced war not far from where I live, I side with the country being attacked.
This has been planned for months. It didn’t backfire into anything. Putin likely made up his mind weeks ago and there was nothing anyone could do. All of his demands were completely ludicrous, and either he knows it or he really has lost his mind.
> cheering for one side
Yes, in a completely unprovoced war not far from where I live, I side with the country being attacked.
> That's a good question, what happens with an anti-air missile if it fails to hit something in the sky? Does it disable itself before hitting ground?
Even if a warhead isn't armed, a heavy missile moving very fast hitting a heavy building moving very slowly makes for a lot of impact energy. Unspent fuel (solid or otherwise) will also readily start secondary fires and be dangerous for rescuers and emergency crews.
Even if a warhead isn't armed, a heavy missile moving very fast hitting a heavy building moving very slowly makes for a lot of impact energy. Unspent fuel (solid or otherwise) will also readily start secondary fires and be dangerous for rescuers and emergency crews.
From what I've seen it's probably a BUK instead of an s300 but most sources agree that it's ukrainian. The missile was probably trying to intercept another one and something went wrong so I doubt it's intentional
From what I've heard it's a Buk-M1 with a failing guidance system that was used to intercept a Russian missile attack on military infrastructure. Why it failed is guesswork but missing maintenance/deterioration is rather likely.
Many anti-aircraft missiles self-destruct (by triggering the warhead) if they lose their target or run out of range. I believe this is a standard feature for most modern implementations. This minimizes the possibility of collateral damage, especially if you are using it over your own soil.
Even some air-dropped munitions you might not expect, like the bomblets from cluster bombs, will self-destruct before they hit the ground if their sensors don't detect a target within their damage radius. Modern weapons go to considerable lengths to proactively auto-disable/self-destruct after deployment.
Even some air-dropped munitions you might not expect, like the bomblets from cluster bombs, will self-destruct before they hit the ground if their sensors don't detect a target within their damage radius. Modern weapons go to considerable lengths to proactively auto-disable/self-destruct after deployment.
Anybody who has spent some time with simple model rockets knows that even they do not always go where they are expected. I have seen model rockets do some pretty remarkable "surprise" trajectories. It is very easy to understand how a far more complicated SAM launched in an urban environment could fly off course and into a building.
S-300 warhead should auto-destroy itself if lost the target. Source: military department of Moscow State University.
When did Kiev become Kyiv? What’s that all about?
Edit: thank you to everyone who educated me on the subject.
Edit: thank you to everyone who educated me on the subject.
> The short answer is simple: Ukrainians call their capital “Kyiv” (kee-yiv), the spelling, a transliteration of the Ukrainian Київ. The Russian version is “Kiev” (kee-yev).
> Not surprisingly, the Ukrainian government mounted a campaign four years ago to secure international approval for the name of its capital city. There is even a popular Twitter hashtag, #KyivNotKiev.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/how-to-pronoun...
> Not surprisingly, the Ukrainian government mounted a campaign four years ago to secure international approval for the name of its capital city. There is even a popular Twitter hashtag, #KyivNotKiev.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/how-to-pronoun...
The Ukrainian and Russian alphabets have different glyphs and pronunciations for a few letters. In Ukrainian, it is Ки́їв, and in Russian, it is Ки́ев. They Romanize differently, and it is considered a sign of solidarity with Ukraine to use their spelling/pronunciation.
Just wanted to note that the acute accent over the и (in both Russian and Ukrainian) indicates the stress and is only used in fairly narrow contexts such as dictionary entries.
Normally it's just Киев/Київ.
Normally it's just Киев/Київ.
Thanks, I was just wondering about that.
Ukraine changed the "official" way to transliterate Ukrainian words from Cyrillic to English some time ago, to closer match the way it's actually pronounced. Plus some changes from Russian to Ukrainian when the country started promoting the Ukrainian language (they're very close, but not quite the same).
Kiev -> Kyiv. Kharkov -> Kharkiv. Zelensky should be spelt Zelenskiy (as per his official social media). Vladimir -> Volodymyr, Mikhail -> Mykhailo, etc...
Kiev -> Kyiv. Kharkov -> Kharkiv. Zelensky should be spelt Zelenskiy (as per his official social media). Vladimir -> Volodymyr, Mikhail -> Mykhailo, etc...
> Zelenskiy (as per his official social media)
On his Twitter, he spells it Zelenskyy
On his Twitter, he spells it Zelenskyy
On Instagram it's Zelenskiy. Also in Cyrillic the last 2 letters are different...
On his official government page [1] it's Zelenskyy. And on his passport, apparently.
[1] https://www.president.gov.ua
[1] https://www.president.gov.ua
Similarly, as a non-European, when did the "Czech Republic" becomes "Czechia" (at least on Google Maps)?
> when did the "Czech Republic" becomes "Czechia"
"On 17 May 2016 the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations informed the UN that the short name to be used for the country is Czechia." [1]
The official full name in English continues to be "the Czech Republic". [2]
[1] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/czechoslovakia
[2] https://unterm.un.org/unterm/Display/record/UNHQ/NA?Id=42750...
"On 17 May 2016 the Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations informed the UN that the short name to be used for the country is Czechia." [1]
The official full name in English continues to be "the Czech Republic". [2]
[1] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/czechoslovakia
[2] https://unterm.un.org/unterm/Display/record/UNHQ/NA?Id=42750...
The official ISO shortname changed on Sept 28, 2016: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:CZ.
Wikipedia has a good discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_Czech_Republic
Wikipedia has a good discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_Czech_Republic
Since you're out of the loop, FYI Swaziland is now Eswatini!
January 19, 2017.
Kiev was the Russian name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KyivNotKiev
Regardless of who is actually responsible, we can all agree without Russian aggression, we wouldn't be here.
Putin’s committing war crimes yet Germany is blocking or slowing down every effort to stop it.
By dragging the swift ban germany is basically making sure that russia has the money to continue its massive offensive.
Germany would have been quicker to sanction poland or romania over minor disputes than it is to sanction a dictator that they have been happily doing business with.
By dragging the swift ban germany is basically making sure that russia has the money to continue its massive offensive.
Germany would have been quicker to sanction poland or romania over minor disputes than it is to sanction a dictator that they have been happily doing business with.
That’s psychotic Russia soldiers having fun.
Does this constitute war crimes? Can Putin or whoever is responsible be charged in court for this?
>Does this constitute war crimes?
As with almost any legal question the answer will depend heavily on specifics not easily determined from a few minutes of video clip.
>Can Putin or whoever is responsible be charged in court for this?
Assuming it does constitute a war crime then theoretically: yes.
In actuality: no, because of course you can't just waltz in and arrest the dictator of a nuclear power.
As with almost any legal question the answer will depend heavily on specifics not easily determined from a few minutes of video clip.
>Can Putin or whoever is responsible be charged in court for this?
Assuming it does constitute a war crime then theoretically: yes.
In actuality: no, because of course you can't just waltz in and arrest the dictator of a nuclear power.
Operationally speaking there’s no such thing as war crimes. The victor writes the rules and the loser, well vae victis.
The “rules based international order” is a sham and always has been. This is made obvious by the US based empire’s total disregard for other states’ sovereignty when it doesn’t suit them.
For what it’s worth I oppose this war as I oppose virtually all wars. It’s tragic and I wish it were unnecessary.
The “rules based international order” is a sham and always has been. This is made obvious by the US based empire’s total disregard for other states’ sovereignty when it doesn’t suit them.
For what it’s worth I oppose this war as I oppose virtually all wars. It’s tragic and I wish it were unnecessary.
>Operationally speaking there’s no such thing as war crimes. The victor writes the rules and the loser, well vae victis.
Yawn.
Of course the victor writes the rules, but the International Criminal Court has the support of most of the UN. If you believe democratic society is fundamentally a good thing then it follows that the Pax Americana has been, in aggregate, a tremendous success in normalizing and codifying international law.
Is the current state of affairs imperfect? Of course.
"Winners write history" is such a boring, undergraduate take on geopolitics.
Yawn.
Of course the victor writes the rules, but the International Criminal Court has the support of most of the UN. If you believe democratic society is fundamentally a good thing then it follows that the Pax Americana has been, in aggregate, a tremendous success in normalizing and codifying international law.
Is the current state of affairs imperfect? Of course.
"Winners write history" is such a boring, undergraduate take on geopolitics.
Exceptionalism is a sad counter argument to this perspective. Didn't the US just recently sanctioned top magistrates investigating US war crimes?
I made exactly zero appeals to exceptionalism.
The period of relative peace in which we live is called the Pax Americana because it's primarily driven by US military hegemony and there's no escaping that fact.
For what it's worth, I'm not American.
The period of relative peace in which we live is called the Pax Americana because it's primarily driven by US military hegemony and there's no escaping that fact.
For what it's worth, I'm not American.
I don’t think your rudeness is appropriate or helps satisfy intellectual curiosity. It sounds like you have some formal training in IR, how about you contribute at a level befitting your education? So much for that.
The ICC is a great example of why “international law” is a dead letter if not a total fraud. I’m sure you’re aware that the US based empire doesn’t acknowledge its authority. The US based empire permits the ICC to act only when it serves the empire’s interests. So much for normalization and codification.
Finally, I never said “winners write history.” I said they write the rules. Conflating the two is intellectually sloppy or a straw man. So much for reading comprehension.
The ICC is a great example of why “international law” is a dead letter if not a total fraud. I’m sure you’re aware that the US based empire doesn’t acknowledge its authority. The US based empire permits the ICC to act only when it serves the empire’s interests. So much for normalization and codification.
Finally, I never said “winners write history.” I said they write the rules. Conflating the two is intellectually sloppy or a straw man. So much for reading comprehension.
[deleted]
As soon as American politicians get the same treatment... The west doesn't hold the moral high ground on anything. Wherever the US meddles, misery follows.
Russian propaganda mix some shady technical details with clear conclusions. You feel like you leart something but you were just mistified. They are here...
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Dang, sorry. I cannot edit the comment, but if you could replace "Russian" with "Please remember that", than this would make my comment substantial and also side agnostic.
The real question is how long have they been here? and how many?
VictorPath(2)
Solid-fueled combined with that kind of trajectory means either an MLRS or an AA missile. (neither artillery shells nor cruise missiles use solid fuels)
This cannot possibly be an MLRS rocket because they are fired in huge salvos and fall without smoke (all fuel is burnt by that point). You won't mistake that for anything else, believe me.
AA launch gone haywire for some reason is my bet. The small explosion is also telling (AA missiles have small warheads, they are all fuel). This would mean either Buk, S-300, or Strela-10 as they are I think the only AA systems in the area. Since that happened yesterday (?) in the Obolon', Kiev, my second bet is that it belongs to Ukrainian Military since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted.
Remember: what you're getting right now is almost pure white noise, from both sides. The full picture will be available much later. Don't trust my words either, verify everything yourself.