47 ms·

What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

• Overtonwindow 5y ago
  Could Putin's end game be that he expects Ukraine to strike back inside of Russia, perhaps a missle on the Kremlin? Then that would give him justification to just carpet bomb Kyiv?
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    Ukraine already struck back inside Russian with a missile attack on an airfield[1]. But I don't think Ukraine has the manpower or the equipment to get munitions anywhere near Moscow. [1] https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-forces-target-russian-airfield-145519988.html https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-forces-target-russian-airfi...
    • csee 5y ago
      But it might be an end game in terms of a false flag to justify such a bombing in Russian propaganda. They can't just outright go for the bombing without such a justification.
      • tguvot 5y ago
        it's not reported in russian media as it will contradict narrative - successful campaign to support armies of LNR/DNS to liberate their republics. Nothing else is reported in media
        • csee 5y ago
          What about the attempts on Kyiv and shelling of Lviv? Didn't Putin say that he wanted to "denazify" all of Ukraine in his opening declaration, not just LNR/DNS?
          • tguvot 5y ago
            absolutely nothing. nada. zero. it's full blown 1984. everybody who says word war instead of "special military operation" is taken off air (they shut down two major radio stations). they are going to make televised school lesson explaining to kids purpose of operation is to keep republics safe (they also sent upfront documents showing how things must be explained to children) duma supposed to make law tomorrow that spreading misinformation about "operation" is an offence. use google translate to browse those ru domains : ria lenta gazeta
            • csee 5y ago
              So, suppose that Putin does capture all of eastern Ukraine. How does he plan to announce it to the population? "Surprise! it wasn't actually just LNR/DNS!"?
              • tguvot 5y ago
                "They overthrew their nazi juna and surrendered". The official propoganda states that ukranian army doesn't fight, only nazi batallions. also nazi's execute ukranian military personal that refuses to fight. there is an article about this on ria Also this was published on 26th and purged https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20...
                • csee 5y ago
                  Do you think Putin wants to find a negotiated solution right now, or he's still all-in on the outcome?
                  • tguvot 5y ago
                    i think all intelligence agencies trying to figure it out. yet.. on one side there been a bit softening with regards to what russia demands from Ukraine, according to russian media. For example that started to loudly demand today that Ukraine will declare to be non-nuclear country. They didn't demand it before so if Ukraine agrees to it (it never tried to do it anyway) it will be a win for internal consumption. On the other side their economy is crumbling. They are in conflict with everybody. On 4th there is supposed to be joint session of parliament and there are assumption that will be announced either mobilization or martial law/state of war/something.
  • tguvot 5y ago
    ukraine already stroke stroke back at russia. - one missile blew up few military planes at airport somewhere near belgorod i think - another one was targeted at airport at taganrog 2 days ago. outcome unknown - bombed fuel supply train in russia but kremlin is outside of rage of ukraine weapons and it has very heavy air defense systems
• narrator 5y ago
  Nobody referenced the recent industrial scale production of hypersonic nuclear weapons that travel at mach 10 that Russia believes can win a nuclear war? https://inews.co.uk/news/world/hypersonic-missile-what-meaning-russia-weapons-ukraine-war-explained-1478478 https://inews.co.uk/news/world/hypersonic-missile-what-meani... To be alarmist, it looks like this is for all the marbles. The Russians think they can win a world war. The reason they are hardly using their Air Force is they are holding it in reserve for the rest of the campaign to reestablish the Soviet Union. Once they take control of an stabilize the Ukraine, hopefully not like they completely pulverized Chechnya, despite brutal islamist insurgency, they are going to do the rest of Eastern Europe. All you guys are saying the insurgency will win, but now the Russians have a whole new generation of counterinsurgency tech that they proved on the ground in Syria. It's going to be very ugly. What's worse is the rest of the world needs Russia's food, fertilizer and energy exports. There will be severe hardship throughout the world without all of that while the war is ongoing.
• xyzzy21 5y ago
  You know it IS something America would not recognize: they are trying to avoid innocent civilian casualties because long-term, that's bad for Russia who has to live next door to Ukraine for all eternity. America has demonstrated since WW2 that anyone who's not American (and even many who are but are only the wrong side or have the wrong color - e.g. ) is 100% expendable - F- the Geneva Conventions or any other international agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki This has been true from Korea to Vietnam to any conflict in the Middle East or Latin America. Our doctrine is "kill everyone and let God or the Devil sort them out" so it's not surprising that this seems bizarre to us and/or our government.
• gedy 5y ago
  Uninformed opinion would be they are holding back until needed if things need to escalate in the Ukraine or with the west. I wouldn't assume it's some sign of weakness.
  • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    > I wouldn't assume it's some sign of weakness. Well, given the deplorable state of their ground units, I wouldn't rule it out.
• PaulHoule 5y ago
  They are afraid of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system a very good technology that the Soviet Union developed which punches above its weight in situations like the Ukraine war because the mobile radars are hard to suppress with these methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen... I have seen a huge number of Buks in various conditions in video footage from the war, one of them was scurrying around the 'suburban' areas of Kiev. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the early missile hits on residential buildings were something like this that failed to lock on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile Ukraine has a lot of Buks, it has a handful of these too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system on paper those are better than the Buk but Ukraine doesn't have so many and I think the Buk is a "cheap and cheerful" convivial weapon like the AK-47 that does great when exported. (Both the Buk and S-300 are a lot like the US Patriot missile system in that they are comprised of a number of mobile units such as command posts, radar, missile launchers, etc. The Buk however has a configuration where the radar and missile launcher are colocated on the same vehicle and I'd guess that configuration works really well under rough conditions with less trained crews.)
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • shepardrtc 5y ago
    > I wouldn't be surprised if some of the early missile hits on residential buildings were something like this that failed to lock on That or Russian missile attacks.
    • tommiegannert 5y ago
      Indeed, I think GP meant that it could be a (Russian) anti-radiation missile that failed to lock onto the radar signal of a Buk.
    • UltraViolence 5y ago
• x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  I can only assume they are keeping their powder dry, or working to limit casualties. I saw a video of a lady riding in a car beside a convoy, and then she threw a molotov and the driver sped off. If that were Iraq in 2003, she car probably would have been lit up.
  • AlwaysRock 5y ago
    They have been bombing cities. I don't think they are trying to limit casualties.
    • jeffreyrogers 5y ago
      There are always going to be civilian casualties in war, but it sure looks like they are trying to limit them. Would be worth comparing to other, similar conflicts. Surely a full scale air campaign would lead to more civilian casualties?
      • 3pt14159 5y ago
        Don't forget the decisions of individual soldiers here. If I were forced to drive a tank in a war I did not believe in and a babushka threw a pointless cocktail at me I would not retaliate. These individual actions in war add up.
        • squarefoot 5y ago
          Especially if there are good chances that the ones you have been ordered to shoot at could be relatives of you or some people close to you. A lot of Ukrainians and Russians are connected, that's another important factor.
      • selectodude 5y ago
        Russia is using thermobaric and cluster munitions in Kharkiv. I really just don't think that Russia has quite as many PGMs as we think and Russia is close enough to most of Ukraine that they can launch regular old rockets from safe territory on the ground.
• Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Just because the US is in love with 'Shock and Awe' doesn't mean everyone else sees it as the appropriate methodology in all circumstances.
  • josefresco 5y ago
    From the article... "That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London"
    • jcranmer 5y ago
      From the development of air power theory a century ago, it's been widely held that strategic bombing of civilian targets is one of the best ways to quickly end a war. The actual failure of strategic bombing to end wars quickly every time it's been tried notwithstanding.
      • boc 5y ago
        The Japanese surrender in WWII due to sustained strategic bombing of civilian cities without a single troop landing in mainland Japan is a clear contradiction to this take.
        • ceejayoz 5y ago
          We've got a sample size of one for "conflicts ended via nuclear explosions", though.
        • thatguy0900 5y ago
          If Russia nuked Ukraine they might win the war on Ukraine, sure. Japan didn't even quit until there were two though. Would they have quit with no nukes and just firebombing?
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
• farseer 5y ago
  • watwut 5y ago
    The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days. Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.
    • whimsicalism 5y ago
      Respectfully, the indiscriminate killing we have seen so far - while awful - does not even remotely hold a candle to what happened in Syria. They are clearly pulling their punches, likely because of the ethnic/racial dynamics of this conflict.
      • watwut 5y ago
        They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened. Whether they pull the punches will be seen later. Historically, there was not much holding back punches between Russia and Ukraine. You may start reading about Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not. For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians. The original propaganda line was that Ukrainians are basically Russians being taken home now. That nonsense was shattered by now. The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think. ----------- War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up.
        • _pd19 5y ago
          So many mis-statements of fact here. > They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened. Very possible, but neither you nor me are in the position to know that. > Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not. For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians. The Holodomor was clearly a completely orthogonal issue to this as it wasn't a military conflict. > Not even toward Russians. What are you referencing in terms of conflict? Probably not chechens, because that would only go in favor of GPs point. > War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up. Russia started intervening in 2015, 4 years into the civil war, and immediately began with indiscriminate bombardment of cities like Raqqa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#September%E2%80%93October_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...) > The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think. The domestic opposition in Russia over killing far fewer people is already much larger than it was to the intervention over Syria which killed far more civilians early on. It is not something "only Americans can think" that Russians care more about the lives of people of close ethnic relation to them as compared to Syrians.
• 0000011111 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#2021%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force#2021%E2%80%9... In terms of numbers according to the Wikipedia article they have about 650 air planes and ~300 helicopter's. Thats a solid fighting force for a relatively small country. Russia as lots of tools - missiles and such that are good at destroying buildings. The problems in that Putin understands that the cities in Ukraine have value. He is trying to take them over with minimal destruction to the buildings at least right now. That way he could move his people with with out needed to rebuild.
  • jwlake 5y ago
    There's around 40 million people that might have a problem with that.
    • mattnewton 5y ago
      Yeah I can't help but wonder if Putin is trying to run a playbook that worked in parts of Georgia and "worked" in Chechnya (eventually remaining Russian territory, at great cost), but doesn't scale to major Ukranian cities.
      • adventured 5y ago
        Russia's only possible 'winning' outcome at this point is to subjugate and murder huge numbers of Ukrainians under a brutal police state, if Putin wants to hold most of the population centers. It'll take a very long time before they'll stop fighting back, Russia will have to debase the culture (they might try it China style, bring in a lot Russian citizens to live in those cities and begin a full, forced transformation, while you violently try to strip away Ukrainian culture). It sure seems like Putin expected them to capitulate quickly and become largely docile before the occupying Russian soldiers while a new government is installed. Not much else explains their approach thus far other than that (their supply provisioning was clearly built for a very short conflict). If Russia doesn't go for the full brutal police state approach, they'll hemorrhage with any typical occupation and will have to leave, and any new system they attempt to install and leave behind will be toppled rapidly (the Russians will have to keep sending forces in).
• slavoingilizov 5y ago
  Many conflicting viewpoints here. Sure, there's been less of a push from Russia than everyone expected, but it's not like Ukraine controls the sky either. Are Ukranians really still flying? If that was the case, the mentioned 40-mile convoy heading to Kiev would have been hit by now, no? Russians driving vehicles bumper to bumper shows VERY strong confidence that they own the sky, so things might not be as rosy for Ukraine as they seem.
  • tedivm 5y ago
    They hit the fuel train that was supplying the convoy with a drone strike and released the footage. The convoy has been stalled for days now, both due to fighting and due to supply chain issues (such as having their supply train blow up).
    • bombcar 5y ago
      Isn't the supply train in the south in Crimea and the convoy in the north near Kiev?
      • tokai 5y ago
        Irrelevant on the question of Russian air superiority over Ukraine. The Ukrainian air force is clearly still operating.
      • ProjectArcturis 5y ago
        There would be separate supply lines for each thrust.
    • astrange 5y ago
      Claiming there's a "the" convoy and Ukraine has either not ever struck it, or has only struck it once, seems to assume a satellite picture you saw from 2 days ago is the only thing that's happening in the country. A lot has gone down since then they're not going to tell you about.
  • ceejayoz 5y ago
• gojomo 5y ago
  It's also possible there are new, not-yet-publicly-disclosed anti-aircraft countermeasures/weapons. So, after seeing hints of greater-than-expected losses from unknown causes, the Russians may be wary of putting more aircraft at risk until more is understood, & tactics adapt.
  • evan_ 5y ago
    I'm not sure if that makes sense. The goal is not to shoot aircraft down, the goal is to prevent them from coming in the first place. Wouldn't you want to disclose the hell out of your extremely effective anti-aircraft weapons so you don't have to use them as much? Obviously not the positioning or numbers but just that you have them...
    • mattnewton 5y ago
      Not if your goal is to win a war of attrition.
      • evan_ 5y ago
        Ukraine's win condition is not "destroy every airplane in Russia," it's "keep airplanes from blowing up stuff in Ukraine."
        • mattnewton 5y ago
          (obligatory I don't know what I am talking about, but) Russia has heavy artillery with crazy range. If they know you have air defenses they will just use artillery shelling instead that bypasses your defense, instead of giving you bombers or landing paratroopers as targets. I think that's how most missiles have been sent to Ukrainian cities so far. I don't think deterrence was a credible option for Ukraine before.
    • gojomo 5y ago
      Not if early disclosure accelerates the development of countermeasures! Nor if you’re worried about a wider conflict - perhaps also involving Asia – & want both maximal degradation of Russian capabilities, & “mystery” advantages for as long as possible. Surprise is a force multiplier, but a new capability is only a surprise for a short period. And a simplistic model assuming the Ukrainian allies are optimally pursuing “prevention” as their goal insufficient to explain all mysteries. If the EU had been clearer about how intense sanctions would be, & how firm they considered the ‘red line’ limiting conflict to the regions Russian-allied forces already claimed, maybe the whole invasion could have been deterred! They weren’t so clear & firm, either because they were hiding the strength of their resolve, or the resolve only materialized late. The latter is currently the official story, but such things often only become known, if ever, years or decades later. People still debate whether Spain sunk the Maine in 1898, or FDR ignored or minimized advance warnings of Pearl Harbor to shepherd the US into WW2 in 1941. There’s also a gigantic phase change in strategy between when you believe an aggression is deterrable, & when you think it inevitable. If deterrence is an option, sure, show strength – but be aware the potential aggressor may detect any bluffs, or discount real strength as a bluff. But as soon as you decide war is inevitable, you may instead want to hide strengths, for a more decisive military response later. If the US/NATO concluded an invasion was inevitable 1 month, 6 months, or even years ago, there was plenty of time to secretly deploy “just in case” novel weapons & tactics - even while Ukraine’s leadership, especially, was publicly signaling “no war expected” & avoiding any overt mobilization.
• garou 5y ago
  Would be possible that their objective was to start by invading easily the Ukraine and Moldova then with close base to NATO old soviet nations start the "real" war to conquer all their "territories" back? If so, their plan just completely blew up now with their destroyed economy and wasting a lot more of their planned resources to capture only the first step… And Putin don't want to admit/face defeat so is trying to win the Ukraine even with the fact that he already lost. It all is so insane, it is freaking hard to understand these maniacs… Slava Ukraini!
• supergirl 5y ago
  they are slowly ramping up, hoping the west will start to negotiate without having to bomb too much. I guess they might have to in the end
• guyromm 5y ago
  I believe they were working under the assumption it would be a walk in the park, once the central government was captured or killed. To strengthen this assumption here's a canned article which was likely meant to be published had things gone according to plan, but pulled, since they hadn't. https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226224717/https://ria.ru/20... RIA is a state owned news agency. Why precisely they thought they'd meet no serious opposition in their attempted airdrop near Kyiv is anyone's guess. Mine is that Putin started believing his own tales about Nazis taking Ukraine hostage, assuming the populace is dying to be liberated from them. Things crumbled once this met a different reality on the ground, and now they're trying to raise the stakes, and have become desperate enough to begin indiscriminately shelling population centres, Kharkiv most notably.
  • cycomanic 5y ago
    I just wrote the exact same thing before seeing your comment, just not so eloquently. I think you are spot on, that really is the only "rational" explanation.
  • guynamedloren 5y ago
    Thanks for sharing. That article is disorienting! How'd you find it?
    • Tarragon 5y ago
      Its existence was reported widely on major news sites, even Boing Boing!. There's a ton of reporting right now easy to miss important while trying to drink from the firehose. I first saw it when a friend sent me a link to this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310064117059585 https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310064117059585
  • ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    What's Russian for "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators"?
• boc 5y ago
  I think we need to consider the possibility that much of the Russian army only existed on paper, and that the true strength was overinflated by trickling up good news only throughout all ranks of the military.[1] Readiness was overstated. Equipment was overstated. Training was for parades, not combat. Everyone in the Russian military had assumed they'd never actually fight a real war, so they could grift and sell rations on the side. Putin didn't realize that his military was hollowed-out when he made the call to invade, and thus everyone scrambled to fill in the gaps of their units with conscripts. That's why we're seeing an unusually high number of captured Russian forces who appear to have nearly no military training or experience. We've seen bizarre tactics that make no sense - tanks being abandoned, APCs driving with no support, etc. It stands to reason that if we're asking "Where's the Russian Air Force?", the answer is that it may never have existed in the size we thought. IMO this is a more logical answer than trying to figure out some 3D chess strategy of why Russia wouldn't their planes during the largest invasion since WWII. [1] https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat https://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11092614/putin-army-threat
  • whimsicalism 5y ago
    I think we know the Russian air force exists from Syria. For ground troops, you may very well be right - they have been heavily relying on private military corps for a while now.
    • selectodude 5y ago
      The Russian air force "exists", in that they have planes and pilots and bombs. But in what quantities and in what condition is a huge question. Furthermore, are they as good at flying in relatively contested airspace as is implied. Russia had total air superiority in Syria, Georgia, the Donbas, and the Caucasus. Ukraine has an army that actually exists and is being armed with some pretty high tech shit from the west.
  • criddell 5y ago
    > the true strength was overinflated by trickling up When I watched HBO's excellent Chernobyl that was one of the recurring themes. Everybody is lying to their superiors and nobody wants to hear bad news and they suffer because if it. I assumed that was probably exaggerated for the sake of drama but maybe it was actually understated?
• adventured 5y ago
  The West should be offering ~$5 million per Russian jet that defects, along with EU citizenship. The US should put up a billion dollars for the program to get it started. Land the jets in NATO territory. Let's put troop loyalty to the test and see if we can't drain some of their best hardware. We're not allowed to attack Russia directly so let's plunder them. Our leaders are not being nearly creative enough in this situation.
  • mrlonglong 5y ago
    Why not sell Ukraine some of these nice B52 planes to seek and destroy convoys on the ground ?
    • gvb 5y ago
      MIG-29s which they are already flying, not B-52s which are useless to them. The deal fell apart, however. https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-jets-to-ukraine/ https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-...
      • 988747 5y ago
        This is a kind of Catch 22 situation with how to deliver those MIG-29s: If a Polish pilot flies it to Ukraine, Russia will consider that an act of war, and possibly start bombarding Poland. If Ukrainian pilot comes to Poland and takes off from a Polish airport then again: that is an act of war. The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send them by train/truck.
        • mrlonglong 5y ago
          If we can supply by road and trains without being drawn into a wider conflict, then it should be possible to send by air.
        • gpm 5y ago
          Ukraine just yesterday flew a MIG-29 back from Romania, unarmed and escorted to the border by Romania jets/from the border by armed Ukranian jets. No-one seems concerned that that's an act of war.
• milesdyson_phd 5y ago
  One thing I don't understand is Russia's opening missile salvos, they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force. I guess you could theorize they didn't want to destroy that infrastructure in the event that the Ukrainian government rolled over, but that seems to have been a risky bet that is currently playing out.
  • whimsicalism 5y ago
    > they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force Keep in mind that media reports and reports from the Ukrainian military are designed to minimize losses and boost morale. I've seen quite a few videos of Ukrainian planes destroyed on the tarmac and there isn't evidence for a significant Ukrainian air presence anymore.
    • milesdyson_phd 5y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were unscathed.
    • drran 5y ago
      We lost over 2000 civilians in last week on Ukraine-controlled territory. We don't need to bust moral after 8 years of war. It's not possible to bust something 8 years straight. My FB is full of «killed by Russian», «lost in fight», etc. You spoke at behalf of Ukrainians, but you have zero information from Ukraine. If you have facts, then list them, please.
    • astrange 5y ago
      Those videos are from a boneyard, they weren't active planes. @oryxspioenkop has the most reliable confirmed info on losses, as long as you can stand his love for Bayraktars.
  • tyho 5y ago
    I don't think RU has that many precision guided (cruise) missiles. The tech for those, small GPS/GLONASS/TERCOM, is post Soviet. My impression is that RU military capability kinda froze after the Soviet Union collapsed, and what "modern" stuff they do have is in very limited quantity.
• coldcode 5y ago
  You can have an enormous airforce on paper, but not be able to wield it in those numbers. It's possible they simply can't get enough working planes together to make a difference, and what they have working is all that they have. It's also possible that Putin is afraid of some other border being attacked and is keeping all planes for defense (though that seems rather stupid). You can't win a ground war if the enemy can indiscriminately destroy your troops, vehicles and logistics, no matter how many people you can throw into battle. Of course this did work in WW2 as the USSR sent enormous armies full of people who were often unarmed (pick up a dead mans rifle), and had Commissars behind them to shoot anyone who failed to go forward. This is no longer the case, and it's entirely possible the troops (and some leadership) simply doesn't have any desire to kill themselves in a war they care nothing about.
  • abrichr 5y ago
    > Of course this did work in WW2 as the USSR sent enormous armies full of people who were often unarmed (pick up a dead mans rifle), and had Commissars behind them to shoot anyone who failed to go forward. This is not an accurate representation, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31t5on/did_the_soviets_really_send_soldiers_into_ww2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31t5on/did_t...
• dbs 5y ago
  Almost everyone underestimating Putin. Probably there’s more than meets the eye. For sure a lot of wishful thinking in western views. Putin never lost a war. Not defending him, just noting that the “good guys” don’t always win.
  • jackTheMan 5y ago
    Or this Putin is not the same Putin he was 8 years ago..
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    Or we've been overestimating Putin for the past decade and his "crafty tough guy" persona was just successful marketing. My personal opinion on this changed when I saw pictures of him sitting at the end of that long table[1] when talking to his advisors/generals. The fact that he's that scared of COVID shatters the tough guy persona. The fact that he was seemingly ok with these pictures going public shows that he has no sense of how silly and bad this looks. [1] https://nz.news.yahoo.com/photos-putin-keeps-his-distance-during-meetings-194633383.html https://nz.news.yahoo.com/photos-putin-keeps-his-distance-du...
  • genocidicbunny 5y ago
    Putin's never really fought a war though, so he would be hard pressed to have won any. The conflicts Russia has engaged in during his reign have been small affairs where there was basically never any real military resistance against Russia. Each of those conflicts was fait accompli as soon as it started. Ukraine is a different beast. Its a country with a regular army that has spent the last 8 years undergoing a rapid modernization process for said army. They have 44 million people, and lots of western support.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  I think part of why Russia looks so inept is because everyone is comparing against the US. However, the US military has the finest logistic operations in the world. Also, there is no substitute for fighting an actual enemy. Part of the reason the US (especial Air Force and Naval Aviation) is so good is that they have actually been fighting. From Libya(Reagan), Gulf War I, Serbia, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Libya (Obama), the US has been fighting quite a bit. Whenever you are actually fighting an enemy, there is a learning curve. The big question is whether the sanctions and international isolation combined with the Ukrainian resistance will force Russia to back down, before they navigate that.
  • demadog 5y ago
    I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars. I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
    • vl 5y ago
      The reason US army is always fighting is economic. US dollar is reserve currency of the world and thus US has almost unlimited credit. But one important element of dollar stability is that carrier group shows up on the doorstep of those getting out of line and shows them errors of their ways. Thus there is a constant need for some pretext to deploy military somewhere.
      • demadog 5y ago
        Do you mean purely for economic reasons or a whole array of reasons and the economics are a part of it? Securing oil fields and the Persian Gulf is more than money and oil, it’s about securing trade via maritime traffic in the gulf for liberal capitalist democracies worldwide. And keeping oil access secure is about pure security but also keeping prices low to not disrupt economies. At least that’s how I understand it.
    • xeromal 5y ago
      I think this too. We're really the only big power in the world that has battlehardened soldiers.
• jcranberry 5y ago
  A foreign affairs article had this to say before the conflict began: >Airstrikes would not go entirely uncontested. Russia’s air force lacks experience in suppressing or destroying enemy air defenses, and it rarely uses missiles that are designed to destroy radar. As a result, Ukraine’s meager air defenses could still pose a challenge. But Ukrainian air defenses are in short supply, and they would be unlikely to provide effective cover for most of the country’s ground troops. They would be quickly overwhelmed. >The opening air campaign would probably be short. Unlike Western militaries, which concentrate firepower in their air forces, Russia puts the bulk of its firepower in its ground forces, so it would quickly proceed to a ground campaign.
• ukraineally 5y ago
  No air force, because cost-benefit isnt there. Too many things to take them out. Not enough things to drop bombs on. Dont worry, they did airstrike the Navy doing navy things? aka floating there threatening civilians. Army is in terrible disarray losing tons of equipment to mud. Losing even more equipment to combat. Their MREs expired 7 years ago. Their army sure is looking pathetic. Is this Putin's last hurrah?
  • aix1 5y ago
    It's hard to be sure, but he is now surrounded by (ex?) multibillionnaires who have all of a sudden lost much of the ability to enjoy their airplanes, yachts, houses etc, ONLY because of voices in Putin's head telling him about his historic mission (or whatever those voices are telling him). I think his life expectancy has gone down as of about a week ago.
    • ukraineally 5y ago
      >It's hard to be sure, but he is now surrounded by (ex?) multibillionnaires who have all of a sudden lost much of the ability to enjoy their airplanes, yachts, houses etc, ONLY because of voices in Putin's head telling him about his historic mission (or whatever those voices are telling him). On paper they are still billionaires because the stock exchange was shutdown. I really don't know how much power they have exactly. I doubt they have any sort of assassination capability. Nor do I expect them to exercise this. Ultimately this is about defunding their war. Their ability to sustain this war has a very short lifetime now. They are now excluded from the global community. The Russian people are headed into poverty. We get to just sit back and let that happen.
      • redisman 5y ago
        It’s the siloviki who might do something if they have a rival group that could take over the administration
• desireco42 5y ago
  It is rather simple, they didn't want to really destroy UAF, but were hoping after initial attack that a lot of them would surrender and switch side, as there is a lot of unhappiness in Ukraine over how they treat Russians, right wingers and pro-nazi groups with guns. So they expected a lot of infrastructure will be available for them to take over. As we know, this didn't happen and now they have to destroy it. Honestly this is not good for Ukrainians as they will now suffer for real. I found this site provides somewhat better analysis of situation, as well as The Hill and Breaking Points for example. http://www.iswresearch.org/ http://www.iswresearch.org/
• sAbakumoff 5y ago
  It's an internal resistance conducted by the military. In the coming days I would expect a coup, Putin's arrest(or worse), the new administration, end of war.
  • xutopia 5y ago
    I seriously doubt that this would pan out. I think Putin is definitely losing support internally but the fear is still very much present. All of his political opponents are either imprisoned, exiled or dead. Some are even exiled and dead. No one wants to lose their life going against someone so ruthless knowing they could lose their life... or their loved ones.
    • sAbakumoff 5y ago
      Russian history knows many examples of coups conducted by people from the inner circle of dictators, starting from Paul I in 1801 and ending with two coups in 1991 and 1993. So, taking down putin from within is a plausible event.
  • xtian 5y ago
    Willing to put money on that?
    • sAbakumoff 5y ago
      I think it's immoral to bet on people's lives.
      • xtian 5y ago
        What about making baseless predictions about peoples lives?
        • sAbakumoff 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• tus666 5y ago
  I think this misses the point entirely. It's their entire strategy, or lack of strategy that is in question. Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...are then promptly destroyed by irregular Ukrainian forces often with improvised weapons. Seemingly trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas. Lack of attempts to destroy strategic infrastructure at the beginning - e.g. TV/broadcast, communications, bridges, rail, etc - using cruise missiles or whatever. Unclear objectives - are they really trying to actually take Kiev or just force Ukraine into submission? Effective use of an air-force is pointless without dealing with the above issues and more.
  • darkarmani 5y ago
    I agree with you. >Small numbers of light vehicles entering towns they have not overcome...trying to take large cities without first gaining and controlling ground and surrounding areas. This was our strategy in Iraq -- highly mobile warfare. Marines sprinting ahead in humvees without armor. it created massive confusion and misunderstanding on where our thrust was - i think it tied up enemy resources outside of Baghdad or something. But in the long run, not capturing enemies or pacifying the areas in-between caused a lot of heartburn later; let alone the looting and lawlessness from leaving power vacuums everywhere. (humanitarian fail) Some massive differences were air superiority, night vision, and disruption of enemy coordination. They could call-in airstrikes anytime there was a threat of armor or mortar fire. Generation Kill is a really good series showing this (it seemed like madness until i watched "The Pacific").
  • UltraViolence 5y ago
    It's not a lack of strategy, merely an expression of that a soldier's life isn't worth sh*t in Russia. These young enlisted conscripts are nothing but cannon fodder with their superiors hoping they can get off a shot or two before they're killed. Pilots, being officers, are another matter entirely. I remember this Kamov Ka-40 helicopter had the ability to blow off its blades to enable the pilot to bail out with an ejection seat. There's nothing remotely like it in the U.S. arsenal.
    • 5y ago
• ibobev 5y ago
  They restrict the usage of artillery and air power to avoid a high number of civilian casualties.
• morganslaw 5y ago
  I wonder if there is significant cyber attacks on Russian military infrastructure that is slowing them down?
  • UncleOxidant 5y ago
    I doubt their military infrastructure is as dependent on the internet as ours may be.
• jefftk 5y ago
  This cites but doesn't link "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force", which is a much more thorough treatment: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... They list three possible explanations: * Too few precision-guided munitions (PGMs) * Risk of friendly fire from surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) due to poor coordination * Lack of experienced Russian pilots
  • standardUser 5y ago
    "Lack of experienced Russian pilot" This one is so hard for me to imagine, given Russia's long history of aerospace pride and massive military budget. The article attributes it to limited flying time compared to US/UK pilots and unfamiliarity with their latest and most advanced jets. Truly hard to comprehend how a military like Russia's could be suffering from lack of training despite a multi-year lead-up to a massive invasion.
    • drran 5y ago
      Ukrainians shot about 30 Russian planes, so 30 experienced Russian pilots are gone. Even if they are catapulted, they cannot return to home easily, while Ukrainians can catapult, return to base, and then use a next available plane same day. It's like battle of Britain, when British pilots did the same trick against Nazi pilots.
      • barelysapient 5y ago
        Ukrainians shot about 30 Russian planes, so 30 experienced Russian pilots are gone This is exactly the metric. Unlike their other assets, planes are expensive to replace and pilots take a long time to train. Russia needs to maintain their air assets in order to defend themselves in case they get challenged that way. And they have tons of warm bodies and old hardware to throw at the situation. Another perspective is that Russian air assets are very vulnerable to MANPADS style air-defense systems. Ukraine has received a ton of these systems from the west and are able to engage targets up to about 3 miles out. They're also vulnerable to the S300 systems the Ukrainians inherited, although its not clear how many of those remain.
• AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Yeah, I was under the impression pre-Ukraine that Russia was an "nth generation" fighter supplier, and therefore should have air superiority almost by default. I was corrected that nobody seems to buy Russia's offerings, and those that were made are basically for show and not in mass production. I also realized that air superiority, as in expensive jets attacking from distance and altitude, might not matter if the enemy has cheap effective drones. If the drone loss rate and replacement is cheaper than the flight hours cost of the ultraexpensive fighter jet, and if they can throw 100 drones at a battlefield and the best you can do is shoot down 10 of them with your ultraexpensive fighter jets... uhoh. Even if you "own" the skies, you don't have ground-air superiority. Yes you can bomb static targets with impunity, but your ground forces are essentially unsupported, and if the enemy is infantry with portable missiles and drones with missiles... uhoh.
  • ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    Ukraine only has about 20 drones, and they are optimized for air to surface strikes, not air-to-air combat. Drones are much cheaper than fighter jets but they're not cheap enough for Ukraine to mass-produce (or purchase) them in the thousands.
  • older 5y ago
    I don't think anyone who've seen Russian made Lada would dare to buy Russian made fighter jets.
    • SyzygistSix 5y ago
      By that metric everyone should be buying Japanese fighter jets. The US was making kick-ass fighter jets at what might be the nadir of the US car industry. Then again, Russian cars do indeed represent an all-time low.
• UltraViolence 5y ago
  I'd have thought that Russia would have air superiority by now, but it seems they don't. Ukraine doesn't use its air power wisely, because I'd think that 60km long convoy would be a juicy target, ripe for the picking. The Russians probably have Buks and S-400 SAMs lined up all over the place to protect the convoy.
  • ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    The convoy is likely stationary but well-defended. And, more importantly, appears to have already been stopped. Ukraine will use its limited resources to attack easier or more critical targets.
  • csee 5y ago
    I believe they do have air superiority, just not air supremacy.
• lamontcg 5y ago
  It might just be that they don't trust most of their pilots to not surrender/defect, and being in a plane makes that easier. I don't really know, but it make as much sense as anything else.
  • drexlspivey 5y ago
    That’s ridiculous, Russia is not North Korea, you can leave the country without hijacking a Fighter Jet
• viktorcode 5y ago
  I think I have the answer. 2008, Georgia. Russian Air Force loses at least 9 aircraft. Georgian minuscule airforce remained grounded. The losses are considered catastrophic inside Russian military command, and overall performance of Air Force was appraised as the worst among branches of military forces. In 2010s there's a string of assassinations happen in Ukraine and Bulgaria. Different people are targeted, from ex-military to weapon mogul Gebrev. What connects them? They all were part of the weapon sales chain that provided Georgia with anti-air defences. Bizarrely, Russian state media is openly accusing some of the victims in doing exactly this: selling anti-air weapons to Georgia. Clearly, a vendetta is taking place. Killing those people wouldn't do anything positive for whatever future Russia was planning. And since the story starts with military campaign and ends with undercover hits, it must be Putin behind this, as he's the only person in command of both military and special forces committing the murders. Syria. Russian Air Force enters the fray. But unlike Assad's they are flying their ground attack planes pretty high, way above range of manpads that are responsible for thinning out Syrian Air Force. Clearly, avoidance is put above target precision. Later, a single Russian aircraft is downed by Turkish defence. The relations between countries are soured, but only for a while. What can we conclude? For whatever reason Putin hates losses in air force. Specifically, in military planes (it seems Russian helicopters aren't enjoying that privilege). I can't presume what this reason might be. But Putin's actions over the last 15 years seem to fit the narrative.
  • jopsen 5y ago
    I guess planes are expensive. Maybe, it's cheaper to use conscripts and leftover tanks from the soviet era.
• jl6 5y ago
  I guess everyone's weighing in with their view, so why not? Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way... It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local resistance. I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences. I can only imagine that the "pro-civilian" policy is part of a plan to eventually install a pro-Russia government that has some semblance of consent from the people. But I cannot fathom how they expect that suzerainty to operate in the face of mass popular resistance. Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry. We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b).
  • gamblor956 5y ago
    It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. We must define "efforts" or "avoid" very differently. At the very start of the invasion, there was a video of Russian tanks deliberately trying to run over civilian cars.
    • hackinthebochs 5y ago
      The video I think you are referring to shows the tank swerving to avoid incoming fire and (presumably accidentally) running over a civilian car.
      • mackrevinack 5y ago
        what i read was that it was some ukrainian pro-russian "saboteurs" that stole the tank and went on a rampage. i can't even remember where i read that now so take it with a grain of salt
• michael1999 5y ago
  I'd be worried that any un-married fighter pilots might just defect. A quick run to Poland, and you're done.
  • dathinab 5y ago
    I don't think Russia would let you take the jet with you. I mean whatever their situation is, I'm pretty sure they still can assassinate defecting pilots. And I'm pretty sure the pilots know.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • jopsen 5y ago
      Isn't it only senior intelligence officers and the likes that they care to assassinate?
    • wewtyflakes 5y ago
      You would think so, but perhaps not! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko
  • burntoutfire 5y ago
    The Ukrainians borders are closed for all men in fighting age (18-60). They're forced to stay in the country.
• ChuckMcM 5y ago
  I am angry at the Russian Federation and impressed with the Ukrainians and terribly sad at the suffering that this war has caused and will cause for the next decade. I also find the way in which this war is being documented on and reported quite amazing. As a very young man, my first experience with war that I can remember was my parents watching the reports on the Vietnam war. They were pretty glued to their TVs and unlike the wars before that one, there was video every day and updates every day. They felt they really "understood" what was going on because they were so very well informed. They had seen it with their own eyes after all! However later, much later, after the war was over and more and more information about the prosecution of the war came out, it became abundantly clear that what they had "seen" was carefully managed by outside forces to convey certain "truths" which were in fact simply narratives drawn from helpful facts with unhelpful facts omitted. There was of course other news coverage, in China (assumed to be all "propaganda") in Vietnam (presumed to be slanted toward their wants and needs), and so it was widely held by the adults that my parents socialized with (Air Force types) that the US coverage was "best, and most reliable." It was also impossible to get on the spot translations of the other stories so it could take days or weeks before you even got to read the "other side" and by then it was often overtaken by events. This war is very different. Different even than the recent middle eastern wars of the late 20th and early 21st century. If you were an American you could be forgiven, if you watched the news, for forgetting that the US was even in a war, much less the driving force behind it. This war has an overload of information, from Twitter, to Facebook, to Tik-tok, and of course various media outlets all around the world. It fundamentally changes how one perceives and understands what is going on. While in previous wars the crafting of a narrative was the side hustle of the folks responsible for communications, in this war it is a huge part of the offensive. This "information war" which works to frame the war in a way that is useful to the framer. Not surprisingly, it isn't nearly so easy to tell only one side of any story. I find this Reuter's story a good example of that. Who are they talking to? What experts are "stumped"? Why is the story they tell important or not important to their intended audience? The more I read the more I recognize that nobody knows what is "really" going on. Some Russians are deserting but no concept of how many or how fast, Ukraine is winning skirmishes, but again big ones? little ones? How does it inform us on where this is going next? I don't think anyone knows.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• maratc 5y ago
  I think that Russia may have a two-prong strategy: either make sure Ukraine is not joining NATO, or make sure that Ukraine that joins NATO is completely wrecked. In the alternative reality, where Ukraine promises tomorrow not to join NATO (ever), the Russian targets for this war may be considered achieved, and everyone could simply go home, probably throwing in a couple billions deal for Ukraine recovery. This would be the best outcome for everyone. But this will not happen tomorrow. If this won't happen at all, the Russians can always wreck Ukraine later, and this is where their air force may play part. In short, I think the Russians are showing some restraint, for now, to make sure the quick outcome still can happen.
  • vkou 5y ago
    I doubt that Russian demands about NATO are in good faith. It's hard to believe that the goal of this invasion was to prevent encirclement, given how Finland and Sweeden's reactions were completely predictable. I think the goal was annexation. The demands put out right now are intentionally unreasonable, but even if they were met, it would not stop the fighting.
    • maratc 5y ago
      OTOH we don’t have any evidence of Russia having any beef with either Georgia or Ukraine, up to 2008 NATO Bucharest summit, where NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would be accepted as members. Georgia was wrecked in half a year after that, and Ukraine since 2014, since the Orange Revolution. The annexation argument came after the fact.
      • kspacewalk2 5y ago
        The Orange Revolution was in 2004. The one in 2013-2014 started with Russia pushing their semi-friendly semi-puppet Ukrainian president to abandon an association agreement with the EU. He pursued that agreement quite vigorously until mid 2013, when derailing it could have been quite easy (stop a few laws from passing, or don't sign them, or put poison pills into them that won't be acceptable to the EU and wrangle over wording for years, etc). Maybe he also believed Russia only cares about NATO, but EU is fine. Anyway, eventually Putin told him in no uncertain terms to do a 180, which he did. The protests that followed eventually escalated into him trying and failing to assume dictatorial powers, ordering a slaughter of ~100 protesters, and promptly fucking off into the dustbin of history. So it's not really about NATO, per se.
• dathinab 5y ago
  Before realizing that there is natural Gas west of Crimea I thought: Why is a Ukrain NATO membership a risk for Russia, there is no change that in Europe NATO would attack Russia, as European NATO members would not allow it. That is except if Russia expects to be in a war against NATO in the not to long future. (Not necessary start the war though). This behaviour could also fit into this argument, i.e. losing a lot by being trying not to lose the important parts to much. Through it could also be: - Political games including high Generals of the Russian Air Force rejecting getting fully involved in the war. - Putin being paranoid and believing that if they send major Air Force troops to Ukrain then some 3rd party will use this to invade Russia/destroy major parts of Russians Air Force. - Putin hoping to get an excuse to wage war against NATO and therefore is holding back the Air Force to launch a attack against other forces. - Russia being in a much worse economical state then believed, not affording to fly the full Air Force. - Something having subtle damaged huge parts of their Air Force (and is kept secret). Like e.g. there being a problem with some of the materials used to build them, or with their guidance system, or similar. - Russia is falling apart (on a high command level) Putin has lost most power, including command over the Air Force, this is a last desperate attempt to regain power. EDIT: Maybe this post is a bit too much taping into conspiracy theory territory.
  • selimthegrim 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising
  • redisman 5y ago
    > Putin hoping to get an excuse to wage war against NATO This would be the most delusional thing anyone has ever hoped for. If Putin is that far gone, we’re all doomed
• wariawful 5y ago
• bryananderson 5y ago
  From what I can gather from a week of obsessively following military experts’ explanations of the conflict, there seem to be two main factors at play. One is the Russian choice of overall military tactics, which is derived from their political goals. While we can’t know exactly what it is, we can assume that Russia plans to impose some sort of political settlement on Ukraine (could be anything from puppet government to partition to annexation). Whatever this settlement is, Russia needs more than Zelenskyy’s (or some Quisling’s) signature on the dotted line: Russia very much needs at least the grudging acquiescence of the Ukrainian military, state apparatus, and general public. Without this acquiescence, Russia will be tied down indefinitely in counterinsurgency and “state building” with an unsustainable cost in manpower, money, and probably blood. To prevent this outcome, Russia initially tried to bypass most cities and focus on rapidly taking Kyiv and Kharkiv with minimal destruction. Hence the (initial) minimal aerial bombing and the various failed tactics such as yeeting paratroopers into airfields with no backup and sending light vehicles on Leroy Jenkins thunder runs into Kyiv and Kharkiv. Needless to say this plan did not succeed. So now Russia has a choice: ratchet up the destruction and try to grind Ukrainian defenses down, or fold and get out to avoid the long-term quagmire, which might eventually endanger Putin’s political survival at home. Problem is, folding would be a major show of weakness for Putin, which could also endanger his political survival at home. So far, we are beginning to see an intensification of shelling of cities, indicating that he is not folding. If this continues, Ukraine should expect to see more bombing from the Russian Air Force (coupled with more shelling from artillery). The second factor seems to be the prevalence of portable air-defense systems (MANPADs, such as Stinger missiles) in the Ukrainian military. These systems are much harder to find and eliminate than larger anti-air weapons like the Buk or S-300, to say nothing of fixed-location air defense systems. MANPADs are also cheap—much much cheaper than military aircraft. So it becomes an expensive proposition to use aircraft at low altitude for missions like ground support. With MANPADs continuing to flow to Ukraine from friendly governments, this factor does not appear likely to change any time soon. So while Ukraine may see more high-altitude bombing as Putin intensifies the destruction, the Russian Air Force might remain leery of conducting some types of aerial operations.
  • csee 5y ago
    Do you think Putin wants to find a negotiated solution right now, or he's still all-in on the outcome?
• MasterYoda 5y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20220302165925/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-happened-russias-air-force-us-officials-experts-stumped-2022-03-01/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220302165925/https://www.reute...
• phtrivier 5y ago
  Not that I want to play contrariant or anything, but assuming the Russian air force is simply "bad at what it does" feels incredibly short-sighted. I would like to have the other versions where the air force is simply saving it's might for later, playing the long game, kept in reserve, etc... Rather that. Assuming they're bad. Or maybe someone in the air force is not fully cooperating with the war effort ? Is there someone in charge that might want to keep a chance to take over negociations with clean hands after Putin is gone ? I know, Occam's razor and everything ; but the "Russian army, baaaad" theory sounds more far fetched.
• etempleton 5y ago
  My best guess would be that a few things are happening: 1. Russian Military Leadership is unwilling to risk their best equipment / personnel This is a pretty radical war in that, yes, Ukraine is overmatched in almost every way, but they also have been provided some of the most advanced and modern anti air and anti tank weaponry by NATO countries. And it may not even be clear to Russia exactly what they have been provided. 2. Dissent Among Ranks While we probably won’t know, at least not any time soon. Some of the reported incompetence of the Russian war effort seems too great to be true. I would not be suprised if there was some intentional stalling in the hope that Putin comes to reason. 3. Morale is Low The Russian military waited a long time at the border. Were sent in, purportedly, without really knowing why or to what end, and then asked to kill people who they see as basically their own countrymen. Hard to fight when you don’t know what for, to what end, and geez, kind of seems like we are the bad guys here. This war is going to test even the most nationalistic of the Russian military. I don’t know how much longer this can go on without a military coup.
  • xeromal 5y ago
    I didn't even consider than generals and/or other leaders could be stalling hoping for the war to come to a close.
• akimball 5y ago
  There is no meaningful Russian air presence in western Ukraine. No good reason not to establish an NFZ there. To avoid conflict, stay west of the Dnieper. Appeasement does not work.
• Havoc 5y ago
  Cannon fodder conscripts are cheaper that jets
• zmmmmm 5y ago
  It makes me wonder if the best deterrence (and perhaps that is the psyops being exercised here) to Putin is to threaten the external (and perhaps internal?) perception of Russia's military might. If other nations generally start to perceive that Russia isn't able to competently or effectively exercise its military then that is a much bigger strategic loss than some sanctions. It will quickly make the option of negotiating a treaty and taking any small face saving win as a symbolic success look far more attractive than appearing impotent and incompetent and unable to even control a nation directly on its own borders.
• commandlinefan 5y ago
  I remember reading once in the late 90's - a bit after the fall of the Soviet Union - that U.S. inspectors toured some of the then-declassified Soviet ICBM launch facilities and they came to the conclusion that the missiles would not have survived liftoff much less reached their targets. If Russia was overstating its nuclear capabilities throughout the 80's, is it possible that they've been overstating their military capabilities in general?
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  My guess is he's saving them for a bigger invasion of other countries if he's able to take Ukraine.
• coryfklein 5y ago
  My personal speculation: some other power(s) outside of Ukraine are responsible for using their soft power to handicap the Russian Air Force, whether via hacking or via a secretive-yet-direct physical intervention within Russia. The "non-news" of Russia Air Force not showing up was not naturally getting coverage in the news, and now DoD figures are making public statements in order to point it out, raise awareness, and poke Putin in the side. Meanwhile, every delay in action from the Russian Air Force weighs heavily in favor of Ukraine. In this way, major adversaries to Russia that are unable to get directly involved for fear of escalation are still able to place their hands on the scales via more indirect means. Even though there is not official treaty requiring Russian adversaries to intervene, it is often still in their best national defense interests to limit Russia's expansionist tendencies in whatever way they can. It is all a continuation of major world powers fighting wars by proxy; the dominant pattern of war-fighting after nuclear proliferation became a thing.
• trasz 5y ago
  One theory I’ve seen is that Russians lack reliably working IFF, the friend-or-foe system. This would explain several friendly fire incidents.
• water8 5y ago
  Let Russia keep Chernobyl so they can call it a win.
• davidhyde 5y ago
  > “The confusion over how Russia has used its air force comes as President Joe Biden's administration rejects calls by Kyiv for a no-fly zone that could draw the United States directly into a conflict with Russia, whose plans for its air force are unclear.” Perhaps Russia assumes that dominating the skies with more aircraft than Ukraine would force an international call for a no-fly zone. This would drag other countries into the conflict because the mandate would have to be enforced.
• trylfthsk 5y ago
  "Pilot" seems to me rather high status, so I would bet that the average Russian pilot comes from a wealthier / better connected demographic than the average citizen. Could the potential fallout from high losses in this demographic lead to risk averse deployment of these assets?
• sbahr001 5y ago
  I think its odd that "military experts" are stumped: If Russia performs a blitzkrieg like attack they would level Ukraine to the ground or destroy major infrastructure. Russia would have to pay to rebuild everything with a pissed off international community. That would cost a hell of a lot more than what they would gain. I don't see why they are surprised, after you realize Russia/Putin isn't trying to destroy, just conquer. It appears like Russia just wants to take over the land, make it a puppet state, and benefit from its resources. Even the damage to civilian buildings look more of a scare tactic to get Ukrainians to surrender than to win by destruction. Countless sources have said that Russia didn't expect the pushback. This whole thing is because Ukrainians have shown amazing resistance. If you look at military battles: Battle of Thermopylae. Battle of Thermopylae explains the advantages/current success of Ukrainians, hopefully with a better outcome <3. The unknown is how Putin is going to save face after all of this.