9 ms·

> Is anyone else completely shocked that our Ukrainian friends seem to have stable high speed internet? Not really. I mean, its clear they have good reason fo

> Is anyone else completely shocked that our Ukrainian friends seem to have stable high speed internet? Not really. I mean, its clear they have good reason for a deep-seated mistrust of their Russian neighbours. So clearly when establishing international IP transit links they have opted time and time again to connect in a Western direction, and evidently this has paid off. Achieving in-country resilience is then not particularly difficult as long as you have geographically dispersed datacentres and nobody starts cutting fibres or toppling 4G masts. I think it speaks more of what the Russian goal here is. Its clear the Russians planned this as a "shock & awe" blitzkrieg, basically hoping for a rapid "victory". So their priority has evidently been to capture as many high-value targets as possible in the shortest period of time. Let's face it, the Russians are not stupid, if they wanted to make the Ukranians suffer they would have targeted all their resources at Odessa (70% of Ukraine's imports and exports) and they would have disrupted communications. Indeed, the Russians could have disrupted communications early on if they wanted to. No bombs required, just a few special forces types. Edit to add: To support the above, take a look at the Arelion (a.k.a Telia Carrier) network map[1]. Shows two international connections to Kyiv from Hamburg and Vienna (and nothing in an Eastern direction). No doubt the map story would be similar with other Tier 1 carriers. [1] https://www.arelion.com/our-network.html https://www.arelion.com/our-network.html

IAmGraydon 5y ago
Just wanted to note it’s “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  Thanks. Noted and corrected.
  - eru 5y ago
    Don't beat yourself up over it, though. 'The Ukraine' used to be perfectly acceptable English. It's a bit like Burma vs Myanmar.
    - eadmund 5y ago
      IMHO it’s still 'the Ukraine,' 'Burma' &c. There's no need to change. We say Paris, with an 's,' not 'paree'; the French say 'Londres,' not London, and that's okay too. Languages use their own words for common place names, and that is fine. There's nothing wrong with using a language's words, and no real need to change them.
      - mcfedr 5y ago
        There is something wrong when it's a clear political statement to use the wrong term
        smcl 5y ago
        > Thanks. Noted and corrected. Looks like it wasn't a clear political statement, and was instead an honest mistake. Let's not get too carried away with this, there's a very real conflict going on and I don't imagine the people being shelled and shot at are particularly concerned about the word "the" right now.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        If you read the chain, the clear political statement was by eadmund. But sticking to old terms or naming conventions (or switching to new ones) is often a political statement. It's a powerful way to do it. I mean, look at the people calling COVID-19 "the China virus". Or the people with strong opinions on "blacklist" vs "denylist"
        eadmund 5y ago
        > If you read the chain, the clear political statement was by eadmund. Ummm, I made no clear political statement, just a linguistic one. I am instinctively conservative, and deeply suspicious of folks who promote change for change's sake. Our language is a lovely, beautiful one and we have spent the last several decades abusing it.
- butler14 5y ago
  they did achieve something! they took out 200 men with /200 helicopters/ to take over an airstrip and 17 blokes on an island in a shed with a /warship/
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  I was wondering about this. My conclusion was that “the Ukraine” refers to the geography and territory (it would read as The Borderland in East Slavic, between the steppe and the Carpathians) whereas Ukraine is the republic and nation that resides in the territory. Since this war directly involves the population and the government, it is Ukraine the nation, not ‘the Ukraine’ the land.
  - drran 5y ago
    Ukraine means «Fortified area» in Ukrainian or Polish. It's «укріплення» (fortifications) + «край»(area)/«країна»(country) = «україна». A modern Ukrainian word with the same meaning is «укріпрайон» (fortified area). It's started by Poland as a set of fortifications to protect eastern Poland against nomads from the East. Multiple ukrains were built. Ukrainian Cossacks were used for defense. When lines of defense covered large territory, the whole protected area received the name «fortified area» (Ukraine). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Vasseur_de_Beauplan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Vasseur_de_Beaupl... for details. Russians are trying to downplay this and replace Oo at the beginning with Oh, to create Russian word Outskirt instead.
  - justsomehnguy 5y ago
    > My conclusion As you can guess, there is no definitive article "the" in Ukrainian language: https://web.archive.org/web/20171014083357/http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1991/499102.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20171014083357/http://www.ukrwee...
sillysaurusx 5y ago
> Let's face it, the Russians are not stupid. I thought so too. But one surprising thing about military conflict is that it's easy to be stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICRQPIduFc&ab_channel=Montemayor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICRQPIduFc&ab_channel=Monte... Even with overwhelming superiority during WW2, the US damn near lost their first attempt to invade Japan. Ditto for Japan attacking Midway, and every other decisive battle. It's unclear what Russia is even trying to achieve at this point. Supposedly they've only committed 1/3rd of their forces, which means they have about 100k troops in reserve. But the 50k they did commit seem to have achieved nothing. I was expecting a blackout (thanks to air bombardment), followed by a destruction of Ukraine's air force, then the fall of Kiev. Not one of those things happened. It really makes you question whether Russia's reputation is well-earned. The next few days will be crucial. Russia has only a few more chances to plan their next moves. If they continue failing, they'll be forced to withdraw when they run out of supplies. Which is to say, a Ukrainian victory doesn't seem to be impossible, and it doesn't seem to be the result of Russia not wanting to punch too hard.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > But the 50k they did commit seem to have achieved nothing. A bit far-fetched I admit, but thinking outside the box, perhaps those on the Russian side of the front line don't really fancy being involved in this ? In other words, "we need to make some noise because the boss is watching" but really the commitment isn't there. Reason I say that is perhaps its an extension of what we saw on that infamous broadcast where Putin was seeking approval from his cabinet but some of them were struggling to find a way to disagree without actually saying it. > It really makes you question whether Russia's reputation is well-earned. But this is also a possibility of course. Who knows. Its impossible to second-guess Putin.
  - brabel 5y ago
    > perhaps those on the Russian side of the front line don't really fancy being involved in this ? I think that's definitely the case, Russians are very close to Ukrainians culturally and ethnically. They were on the same side on several wars. I think this may explain why things are not going full on bloodthirsty kill-everything-that-moves yet... but just wait until coffins start piling up on the hangar. Seeing your mates being killed has a way to make you de-humanize and hate the other side, no matter who they are. That's how you end up with entire cities bombed to the ground in later stages of a war... I don't think any war starts that way, that's how it usually ends though. Let's hope they'll find a way to stop this in time.
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> Its clear the Russians planned this as a "shock & awe" blitzkrieg > the Russians are not stupid these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. I do not think they're stupid which is why I can't help to figure out why they botched this up. The whole thing looks like an unhinged ego trip of a single ruler that has grown increasingly isolated (maybe because of the pandemic), like Stalins final days. But Putin isn't Stalin. So either they failed on strategy, nobody was brave enough to question Gerasimov, or the bigger plan is yet to reveal itself. For now it's Occams razor I think.
- Udo 5y ago
  > these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. Same here. Could the issue be morale? I heard isolated reports that the lower-rung soldiers appeared to have very low fighting morale, and apparently many had not believed that the invasion would actually go ahead. Allegedly, some hadn't been told they were actually doing an invasion. What if this problem exists from the top down? It only takes a few disillusioned generals so they fail to deploy 70% of their forces, and the troops that do make it to the battlegrounds are not being properly coordinated. The only other reason I can think of besides internal sabotage is that they're worried about the optics of a too brutal assault, but then again they have not really worried about optics in the past.
  - tlogan 5y ago
    It seems to be morale. Here [1] is a click of Ukrainian asking Russian soldiers if they need tow back to Russia. My point is that Russians and Ukrainians people like each other: the problem is that Ukrainie does not have puppet like Lukashenko as a leader. [1] https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=20&t=GhU58w7qiPhAUK0KINgdbQ https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=2...
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks that while what’s going on is reprehensible and terrible, it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? Ukraine is a pretty soft target and has great strategic value. After taking Crimea and installing favorable leaders in Belarus Russia was prepared to invade from all sides with no resistance (Which was probably planned years in advance). Europe is helplessly dependent on Russian gas, and won’t risk intervening. China is collaborating with them behind the scenes mitigating the West’s threats of sanctions. From my perspective I see a highly intelligent, strategic set of decisions made over a long period of time. Unfortunately it seems most people seem to be ignorant to the facts and analyzing the situation emotionally.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> the Russians are not stupid Arrogance is one hell of a drug. It's entirely possible that Russia believed its own propaganda and thought they would be welcomed as liberators by the Ukrainian people. The US literally did the same thing in the war in Iraq. With the number of lies the Russian state throws out on a daily basis I'm sure it's hard to keep things straight.

IAmGraydon 5y ago

Just wanted to note it’s “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”.

traceroute66 5y ago
Thanks. Noted and corrected.
- eru 5y ago
  Don't beat yourself up over it, though. 'The Ukraine' used to be perfectly acceptable English. It's a bit like Burma vs Myanmar.
  - eadmund 5y ago
    IMHO it’s still 'the Ukraine,' 'Burma' &c. There's no need to change. We say Paris, with an 's,' not 'paree'; the French say 'Londres,' not London, and that's okay too. Languages use their own words for common place names, and that is fine. There's nothing wrong with using a language's words, and no real need to change them.
    - mcfedr 5y ago
      There is something wrong when it's a clear political statement to use the wrong term
      - smcl 5y ago
        > Thanks. Noted and corrected. Looks like it wasn't a clear political statement, and was instead an honest mistake. Let's not get too carried away with this, there's a very real conflict going on and I don't imagine the people being shelled and shot at are particularly concerned about the word "the" right now.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        If you read the chain, the clear political statement was by eadmund. But sticking to old terms or naming conventions (or switching to new ones) is often a political statement. It's a powerful way to do it. I mean, look at the people calling COVID-19 "the China virus". Or the people with strong opinions on "blacklist" vs "denylist"
        eadmund 5y ago
        > If you read the chain, the clear political statement was by eadmund. Ummm, I made no clear political statement, just a linguistic one. I am instinctively conservative, and deeply suspicious of folks who promote change for change's sake. Our language is a lovely, beautiful one and we have spent the last several decades abusing it.
butler14 5y ago
they did achieve something! they took out 200 men with /200 helicopters/ to take over an airstrip and 17 blokes on an island in a shed with a /warship/
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
I was wondering about this. My conclusion was that “the Ukraine” refers to the geography and territory (it would read as The Borderland in East Slavic, between the steppe and the Carpathians) whereas Ukraine is the republic and nation that resides in the territory. Since this war directly involves the population and the government, it is Ukraine the nation, not ‘the Ukraine’ the land.
- drran 5y ago
  Ukraine means «Fortified area» in Ukrainian or Polish. It's «укріплення» (fortifications) + «край»(area)/«країна»(country) = «україна». A modern Ukrainian word with the same meaning is «укріпрайон» (fortified area). It's started by Poland as a set of fortifications to protect eastern Poland against nomads from the East. Multiple ukrains were built. Ukrainian Cossacks were used for defense. When lines of defense covered large territory, the whole protected area received the name «fortified area» (Ukraine). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Vasseur_de_Beauplan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Vasseur_de_Beaupl... for details. Russians are trying to downplay this and replace Oo at the beginning with Oh, to create Russian word Outskirt instead.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > My conclusion As you can guess, there is no definitive article "the" in Ukrainian language: https://web.archive.org/web/20171014083357/http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1991/499102.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20171014083357/http://www.ukrwee...

sillysaurusx 5y ago

> Let's face it, the Russians are not stupid. I thought so too. But one surprising thing about military conflict is that it's easy to be stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICRQPIduFc&ab_channel=Montemayor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICRQPIduFc&ab_channel=Monte... Even with overwhelming superiority during WW2, the US damn near lost their first attempt to invade Japan. Ditto for Japan attacking Midway, and every other decisive battle. It's unclear what Russia is even trying to achieve at this point. Supposedly they've only committed 1/3rd of their forces, which means they have about 100k troops in reserve. But the 50k they did commit seem to have achieved nothing. I was expecting a blackout (thanks to air bombardment), followed by a destruction of Ukraine's air force, then the fall of Kiev. Not one of those things happened. It really makes you question whether Russia's reputation is well-earned. The next few days will be crucial. Russia has only a few more chances to plan their next moves. If they continue failing, they'll be forced to withdraw when they run out of supplies. Which is to say, a Ukrainian victory doesn't seem to be impossible, and it doesn't seem to be the result of Russia not wanting to punch too hard.

traceroute66 5y ago
> But the 50k they did commit seem to have achieved nothing. A bit far-fetched I admit, but thinking outside the box, perhaps those on the Russian side of the front line don't really fancy being involved in this ? In other words, "we need to make some noise because the boss is watching" but really the commitment isn't there. Reason I say that is perhaps its an extension of what we saw on that infamous broadcast where Putin was seeking approval from his cabinet but some of them were struggling to find a way to disagree without actually saying it. > It really makes you question whether Russia's reputation is well-earned. But this is also a possibility of course. Who knows. Its impossible to second-guess Putin.
- brabel 5y ago
  > perhaps those on the Russian side of the front line don't really fancy being involved in this ? I think that's definitely the case, Russians are very close to Ukrainians culturally and ethnically. They were on the same side on several wars. I think this may explain why things are not going full on bloodthirsty kill-everything-that-moves yet... but just wait until coffins start piling up on the hangar. Seeing your mates being killed has a way to make you de-humanize and hate the other side, no matter who they are. That's how you end up with entire cities bombed to the ground in later stages of a war... I don't think any war starts that way, that's how it usually ends though. Let's hope they'll find a way to stop this in time.

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

> Its clear the Russians planned this as a "shock & awe" blitzkrieg > the Russians are not stupid these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. I do not think they're stupid which is why I can't help to figure out why they botched this up. The whole thing looks like an unhinged ego trip of a single ruler that has grown increasingly isolated (maybe because of the pandemic), like Stalins final days. But Putin isn't Stalin. So either they failed on strategy, nobody was brave enough to question Gerasimov, or the bigger plan is yet to reveal itself. For now it's Occams razor I think.

Udo 5y ago
> these 2 points have been on my mind unrelated to your argument. Same here. Could the issue be morale? I heard isolated reports that the lower-rung soldiers appeared to have very low fighting morale, and apparently many had not believed that the invasion would actually go ahead. Allegedly, some hadn't been told they were actually doing an invasion. What if this problem exists from the top down? It only takes a few disillusioned generals so they fail to deploy 70% of their forces, and the troops that do make it to the battlegrounds are not being properly coordinated. The only other reason I can think of besides internal sabotage is that they're worried about the optics of a too brutal assault, but then again they have not really worried about optics in the past.
- tlogan 5y ago
  It seems to be morale. Here [1] is a click of Ukrainian asking Russian soldiers if they need tow back to Russia. My point is that Russians and Ukrainians people like each other: the problem is that Ukrainie does not have puppet like Lukashenko as a leader. [1] https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=20&t=GhU58w7qiPhAUK0KINgdbQ https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640?s=2...
oceanplexian 5y ago
Am I the only one who thinks that while what’s going on is reprehensible and terrible, it does actually make a lot of strategic sense from Putin’s POV and he is not, in fact, an idiot? Ukraine is a pretty soft target and has great strategic value. After taking Crimea and installing favorable leaders in Belarus Russia was prepared to invade from all sides with no resistance (Which was probably planned years in advance). Europe is helplessly dependent on Russian gas, and won’t risk intervening. China is collaborating with them behind the scenes mitigating the West’s threats of sanctions. From my perspective I see a highly intelligent, strategic set of decisions made over a long period of time. Unfortunately it seems most people seem to be ignorant to the facts and analyzing the situation emotionally.

AlexandrB 5y ago

> the Russians are not stupid Arrogance is one hell of a drug. It's entirely possible that Russia believed its own propaganda and thought they would be welcomed as liberators by the Ukrainian people. The US literally did the same thing in the war in Iraq. With the number of lies the Russian state throws out on a daily basis I'm sure it's hard to keep things straight.