16 ms·

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 thin

by 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
  - Steltek 5y ago
    So much is hard to verify but I think there's reason to believe that the vehicle was Ukranian. It lacked the V Z etc white letters and it was a lone anti-aircraft vehicle wandering through the city, not something that's put right on the battle line. Again, hard to know what's truth and propaganda. Either way, that vehicle was fairly out of control so regardless of who was driving it, I don't think it was intentional.
  - unnouinceput 5y ago
    It was actually an accident. The tank was Ukrainian and the driver had very poor visibility, hence the swerve on top of civilian (70+ senior actually, that miraculously didn't got any injury) car.
    - high_pathetic 5y ago
      Russian tank - deliberate run-over. Blast about it from all media channels. Oh, it's a Ukrainian tank. Pfft, it was in a accident, let's not talk about it. That's why I don't read/watch news, especially nowadays.
      - robbiep 5y ago
        I mean it’s pretty hard to avoid the ‘news’ since just about everything is a ‘news’ source these days, but it is fairly easy to just assess the data provided and leave the interpretation for more facts to arrive. Video: tank runs over car. Gut reaction? Bit of horror, concern. Judgement? Reserve
      - woah 5y ago
        Ukraine wouldn't be putting 70 year olds in tanks if it wasn't being invaded in an unprovoked war by a much larger neighbor (and no, the goal of punishing NATO for not giving Russia a blank check to invade Ukraine by invading Ukraine is not a valid provocation).
        high_pathetic 5y ago
        70+ year old was in the car, not in the tank.
- MikeHolman 5y ago
  The civilian casualties are obviously tragic, but they are not beyond the scale that we've seen in recent wars the US has fought.
ironcurtain 5y ago
Considering that there are millions of Russians there and 10-15 millions of Russian-Ukrainians, yes. South and East will not only accept but accept it gladly. West and center is a different story but then the area was always controlled by outside power - western provinces by Austria and Poland, Kiev and its surrounds - by Russian Empire. Give it 10-15 years and absence of rabid nationalistic media and things will change.
yks 5y ago
This is a war of hatred towards Ukrainians from Putin. Therefore he's both 1) not expecting resistance because enemies are dehumanized and weak according to his worldview, 2) probably ready to start genocide if enemies resist too much, after all, Holodomor happened less than a century ago.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  My pet theory is that, in addition to (1), Putin believed his own propaganda and thought that the Ukrainian people (and even parts of the Ukrainian military) would welcome Russia with open arms. This is somewhat backed up by Putin urging the Ukrainian military to perform a coup on the second day of the war[1]. [1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-overthrow-leaders/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-o...
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    According to reports on French news channels, Zelenskyy is considered a puppet by a large % of the population in eastern Ukraine and they are welcoming a Russian invasion. Years ago, I was also suprised to hear people in Crimea celebrating post-Russian take over. This topic was never covered (at least I had seen no mention) in American media during the Crimean invasion.
    - sharikous 5y ago
      If you want to understand a topic you have to hear all sides. Yep there is substance in some Russian points - Ukraine is, somewhat, artificial as a country (bear with me) - In Crimea a lot of people celebrated the takeover. The referendum was rigged but there was a tangible popular support - In Donbass some people are not really fans of the Ukrainian government. I know people from Donetsk that prefer the Russians - People in Donbass suffered from continuous shelling from Ukrainian forces (I don't want to emphasize the "Nazi" affiliation of the Azov brigade because it's a propaganda point but yes, there have been incidents and civilians suffered). Donbass reminds me of Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and I can see both sides - Yes EU and the US pushed for bringing Ukraine into the West and funded their people there - There is definitely a very high level of corruption in Ukraine, especially in the political echelon. Some EU-friendly policies have been obtained by corruption That said I agree with most of the criticism of Putin's regime too. And of course invading a country that is becoming more democratic precisely because they want to defend themselves from you is a crime. And Ukraine is a bit artificial (not 100% artificial but it's not a country with an established culture and identity) but it's exactly those events, like this war, that make it more and more real. The Ukrainian identity is becoming stronger and stronger hour by hour.
tguvot 5y ago
maybe they were avoiding in few first days, but gloves are off now because they are failing to advance. planes are bombing cities in residential areas (i have relatives in kharkiv). heavy artillery, etc. there is footage that looks like footage from WWII, of residential neighborhoods of apartment complexes in rubble and half collapsed buildings on fire.
- akimball 5y ago
  This is destroying Putin's legitimacy in Russia too
  - tguvot 5y ago
    nothing of it reported. use google translate to browse ria ru
    - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
      Can't access it even with Google translate from Europe. What a sad day for the so-called free world. Edit: works with Yandex translate
      - tguvot 5y ago
        jump over here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30536790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30536790
        pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        awesome thanks
hgomersall 5y ago
I still can't see how (b) doesn't still lead to (c). He needs to control the security apparatus, and that means essentially being an occupying force. It's not like the Ukrainians have not already have their security trampled all over already, so the usual limits on a popular uprising are gone already.
- raducu 5y ago
  You have no idea about the darkness and effectiveness of modern tyranny. Russia is pretty much North Korea in democracy at this point or they will become so very soon. Putin wants the sanctions to be over. His next move will be to create devastation in Ukraine and hold civilians as hostages for the lifting of the sanctions. In anycase, Russia will controll South of Ukraine, link up with Transnistria and even if they don't take Kyiev and don't force Kyiev into peace negociations, the will secure such a strong position that absolute control won't matter
  - sharikous 5y ago
    That's insightful and cynic. Possibly right too. But why "modern tyranny"? Wars like that are not a novelty... or is it about taking civilians as hostages?
    - raducu 5y ago
      Because with modern technology oppression is a lot more efficient than before. Not says that it was not in thr past.
  - Mirioron 5y ago
    If Russia manages to occupy Ukraine through repressions then wouldn't this invite Chechnya 2.0, but with 30x the people? Can the Russian state even survive something like that?
    - raducu 5y ago
      Yes it would, but those able to would eventually leave the country and those peope left will tire out, run out of money and will. I don't know what Putin thinks at this stage, I think he desperately needs a win to restore some credibility back home. I'd say he's going to invade Moldova in the next few days (once Odessa is taken) and make a big show of how easily they took it to restore morale, and very soon after they're going to plunge in Ukraine's back and make a big push for Kyiev. I think they might abandon installing a puppet government, but in that case they will bring devastation to Ukraine and keep the whole Black Sea coast, and just let Ucraine fester.
ChildOfChaos 5y ago
I mean all I see when I look online is Russia attacking Civilians and not caring who they attack. Yes there is a degree of restraint because they are trying to take the country over, they cannot burn it to the ground, but they don’t really seem to care about civilians and keep committing war crimes, just now they directly bombed near a hotel and train station, people trying to flee the country. Saying they are ‘pro-civillian’ seems far fetched and doesn’t seem to match the facts The British government is leading a 38-nation referral of Russia to the ICC to probe war crimes and a direct quote from the British Government foreign secretary just now reads: “Putin’s military machine is targeting civilians indiscriminately and tearing through towns across Ukraine"
- lmohseni 5y ago
  We have footage of cluster bombs striking civilian apartment buildings in Kharkiv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw
  - throwawayay02 5y ago
    There are counter claims that that building was being used for recruitment for the Azov battalion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - tguvot 5y ago
      like seriously, lol. their intelligence were crappy enough to miss a bunch of air defense systems but they know that in some specific building is an recruitment for azov
      - akho 5y ago
        The specific building is the regional administration, and recruitment there was advertised in Ukrainian telegram channels. All that excuses nothing.
BaseballPhysics 5y ago
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly This is my take as well. The obvious contrast is their handling of Kiev versus how they utterly flattened Grozny. It's clear to me that in the early days Russia was hoping for a quick and decisive win. They'd decapitate the government, install a puppet regime, and then hope the public would roll over. That hasn't happened and we're now entering a much more bloody phase of indiscriminate bombing/shelling of the civilian population.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > ... Grozny... The Russian Army didn't initially flatten Grozny with artillery either. It was only after a failed assault that they switched to methodical urban destruction. Which is why racheting up sanctions and worse ASAP is important... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995)#Russian_advance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80...
- kubav 5y ago
  Actually real attack on Kiev have not started yet. Ukrainians probably deliberately let Russian army to get close to the Kiev and than destroyed all supply convoys for Russian vehicles. I have this info from one of the journalist who were close to Belarus border in the beginning of the invasion. First he wrote article about how hopeless situation is because he rode a few hours to Kiev before seeing first defense. But after two days all the attacks on Kiev stopped so it probably was smart strategy to make supply lines too long to defend them. Even on Monday he reported that only shelling he saw was from Ukrainian army.
Steltek 5y ago
I figured it was that concerted civilian targeting will force NATO to act. Or perhaps that the close ties between the two countries is still somewhat able to override Putin's shitty bloodthirsty instincts in some ways.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I'm beginning to doubt that.
- empressplay 5y ago
  When Biden said in the SOTU that Americans were going to be okay he basically put the last nail in the coffin of NATO intervention, sorry guys
austhrow743 5y ago
>Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? Iirc Ukraine had a government that was subordinate to Russia as recently as 2014. Belarus is still a Russian puppet. The Transnistria region of Moldova to Ukraine's south is largely welcoming of Russian military control. Doesn't seem too outlandish for them to assume that to me.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That would be an epic failure of Russian intelligence. Alternative take: they knew but didn't dare to tell Putin. Don't underestimate the isolation of strongmen.
- cguess 5y ago
  That government in 2014 was violently overthrown by a popular rebellion. Unlikely they'd be greeting Russians as liberators after that.
danenania 5y ago
I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the borders, Russia will be playing whack-a-mole against insurgency forever no matter how much force they use. Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw. It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- google234123 5y ago
  Yo be fair, those insurgencies did kind of have access to safe zones (Pakistan is next to Afghanistan) and a good supply of weapons which definitely helped them.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    It was, however, nothing close to the levels of support Ukraine is getting. And those insurgencies faced a vastly superior US armed forces.
    - killjoywashere 5y ago
      Those American forces also had vastly longer supply lines to sustain. What the Russians lack in financing and capability, the make up a lot with proximate borders, time zones, etc.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        It’s interesting because the U.S. has an order of magnitude more military funding and was trying to secure a supply line an order of magnitude longer. I wonder if this ratio makes it approximately as difficult?
Cd00d 5y ago
suzerainty You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one. a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy
- zh3 5y ago
  Let's not lose sight of the points being made.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 8ytecoder 5y ago
  I bet OP plays Civilization.
- jihadjihad 5y ago
  It's an exquisite word. I too was ignorant of its existence until I played Civilization VI, where you can become the suzerain of a city-state.
  - Karsteski 5y ago
    I also only know the word suzerain from Civ VI haha. Certainly learnt a lot more history and gained a lot more interest in historical texts after playing Civ, far more so than school ever did....
  - labster 5y ago
    I learned “revanchist” from Europa Universalis IV and it has been a pretty useful word in the past week.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I might not have an IR degree, but for the first time I feel like playing Crusader Kings and Civilization has finally paid off.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences. That doesn't explain this, though: > Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts. > After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses. > That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force." > Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace. ... > Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time. Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.
- jihadjihad 5y ago
  I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of. It's unclear to me how much of that time Ukraine used to prepare. If they did, they didn't telegraph it. What I read was the Russian amphibious landing in the south was done 30-40 miles away from the target city (or kilometers, can't remember the unit). Apparently they wanted the space to get organized. However that meant the city had extra time to prepare after the actual invasion started.
raducu 5y ago
Let's face it, Russian airforce, russian army and russian equipment suck, but are good enough in this situation. The Emperor Putler has no clothes.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  I've seen reports that Russia's only deployed 5-10% of their forces. This might be a slow steady escalation to allow evacuations of civilians and test the endurance of battalion forces. Any victories for Ukrainian forces may be short lived, as Russia seems to be using this opportunity to guage hot and cold zones.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    ~80% of assembled combat force, from the sources I've read [0] [0] http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment.html?m=1 http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaig...
  - cagey 5y ago
    Having (from a US civilian POV) sought to comprehend Soviet (and now Russian) military capability from afar since the early 1980's, it has long been my perception that (due to the political system in place there and the resultant poor economy) only 5-10% of Russian/Soviet military units nominally in existence have sufficient morale, training, and full provisioning with modern equipment to engage in successful offensive operations. In other words, that 5-10% of their units are lavished with the best people, training and weapons, and the remaining units make do with sub-par everything (at best). Is the above an inaccurate perception?
    - monocasa 5y ago
      But their doctrine isn't to start with the with the well trained and equipped 5-10%, but instead a bunch of conscripts that that soak up some material, and then send in the competent soldiers.
      - 5y ago
risyachka 5y ago
>> and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing they do not. Their policy is not pro-civilian at all. These are facts that you can see on the streets, no fog of war here. They are are bombing residential areas for DAYS without stopping. And I know, my best friends are in Kyiv and Kharkiv how. Also there was a missile strike on the railway in Kyiv where people are evacuated. Civilian people. Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level. " It is, when you compare it with syria or chechnya.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face Recognize the annexation of Crimea and promise immediate sanctions rollbacks the moment the last Russian troop leaves Ukraine (other than Donbas and Luhansk, that ship has sailed).
- kyboren 5y ago
  I also think this is the most viable offramp. Everyone gets to plausibly claim victory, if not total victory. Russia keeps the money pit dear to the hearts of many Russians and doesn't become a Chinese vassal state. Ukraine ends the bloodshed and saves their sovereignty for the cost of what they have already lost. There will be sticking points, for sure, notably around Putin himself, reparations, and yes, the status of DPR and LPR, but I hold out hope that they don't forestall a potential deal.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Sorry, but I don't think there's an offramp. I can't see the Russian leadership backing down from their stated goals. That means they have to subdue Ukraine, and probably Finland, Estonia and Poland too. If they don't win in at least Ukraine, then they have lost badly, and their economy is destroyed. I don't think they'll settle now for a piece of Crimea or a piece of Donbas. The entire story is that the whole of Ukraine is a bogus state.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > Finland, Estonia and Poland That would be a hell of an escalation. Emphasis on hell. Estonia and Poland are NATO members, which means WW3. And attacking Finland, though not yet a NATO member, would probably invite the largest response from Europe in memory. World war indeed.
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        > which means WW3. Customarily, it's been called a "World War" when both sides have participants from multiple nations. As far as I'm aware, Russia's only ally would be Belarus, which looks to me like a Russian province in all but name. "WWIII" is a term that also refers to Global Thermonuclear War; if that's what you meant, then I apologise for being pedantic. [Edit] No attack on Poland or the Baltic states is possible without first subduing Ukraine; so I don't think that's at all imminent. But I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pops a tactical nuke or two in Ukraine, then all bets will be off.
csense 5y ago
Don't forget about option (d), try to kill everyone in Ukraine. Less than 100 years have passed since Stalin attempted exactly that, by killing all the farmers and selling all the food.
- jihadjihad 5y ago
  It's hard to know what that would serve to accomplish, considering it contradicts Putin's entire ethos for invading in the first place: he fundamentally views Ukrainians as culturally Russian, and wants to bring them back "into the fold." His entire rhetoric is adamant about that--it's why he uses words like genocide when talking about eastern Ukraine. I can't see how (d), which in effect would be genocide, would do anything but erode any possibility of support for the war effort, considering the family ties to Ukraine held by Russian nationals.
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    Rhetoric is rhetoric: it provides a smokescreen. Geostrategically, Putin wants what every ruler of Russia has wanted since it was the Principality of Muscovy: control of the North European Plain, in order to prevent invasion from the west.[1][2] An empty, derelict Ukraine would serve nearly as well as a puppet state for this purpose. 1. It's worth reading some geography and history. Russia has been invaded a lot, and has a justifiable fear of invasion. Sure, the West might not want to invade now, but who can predict what the situation will be in 2070 or 2170? 2. Putin also wants to maintain the viability of Russia's warm-water port at Sevastopol. The Crimean peninsula was formerly supplied with water by a canal from Ukraine, but that was blocked after Russia annexed Crimea, and Crimea is now desperately short of water. And there is the small matter of major unexploited gas fields in the Black Sea between Crimea and (the rest of) Ukraine...
    - chupy 5y ago
      He does not need to prevent invasion from the west, just having the nukes automatically prevents that and he knows it. One of the first thing the Russians did was unblock that canal that Ukraine cemented. That plus them sending cannon fodder to the nord and what seems like better troops south + east starts to feel like this whole war is more about a resource grab than to "prevent invasion from the west". I could maybe understand one madman feeling like he wants to rebuild the past USSR glory but if it's all about the money that can be made from oil/gas then it's clear it's not just him driving this.
vbezhenar 5y ago
Ukraine population is brain washed by west propaganda. They’ll brain wash them with Russian propaganda and that’s about it. It’s all about controlling the media.
e40 5y ago
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? > Their options seems to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry. > We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b). This is precisely the conclusion I've come to. I think the only (a) is give him some territory. That seems unlikely. Perhaps retake all of Crimea and then give him part of it? I'm really worried about (b). I have 3 friends/coworkers there.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing This doesn't explain Russia's lack of air superiority as well as the hypothesis proposed by the paper on which this article is based [1]: a lack of precision munitions, the risk of Ground Force SAMs causing friendly fire due to bad coordination between the branches and a lack of pilot training leading to those planes not being battle ready. [1] https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar...
anothernewdude 5y ago
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local resistance. They're hitting a lot of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. As per their typical operating procedures, c.f. Syria.
phtrivier 5y ago
In all fairness, "invade assuming the people will chant you to power" sounds a lot like GWB statregy back in 2003... We made lots of jokes back then.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. That doesn't apply to apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. The shelling is very intense in multiple cities. So yes, most Russians aren't directly firing on people in the street, but in larger cities they're destroying their homes and local infrastructure.
- laichzeit0 5y ago
  So the school bombings are easily justified. I saw two separate pictures on Reddit yesterday where Ukrainian soldiers are prepping in a school gym (think it was a basketball court). Like selfie shots from a Ukrainian soldier. Look Im pro Ukraine. Out of interest I joined a bunch of Telegram groups that are “pro Russian” to see how both sides see the conflict. There is a lot of information you’re missing out on if you just look at mainstream news. Like the school thing. Maybe I’m being redpilled. It was a weird eye opening experience for me. Edit: here it is https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrainian_soldiers_in_what_appears_to_be_a_school/ https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrain... There’s also another video of a school attack aftermath. Dead Ukrainian solders in the school. Looks like it was close quarter combat.
trhway 5y ago
>It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. As a way of self-preservation. USSR lost 13K people in 10 years of Afghanistan war. Russia has already lost 6K in 7 days of Ukraine war. Ukrainians are fighting in whatever way they can and tearing Russians a new one. Among the first questions they ask Russian POWs is "Did you shoot?" >I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, Russia is running out of high precision weapons, and this one of the reason of them starting to use older non high precision weapons and thus corresponding rise in civilian hits (with the other reason being is that they have already stricken most of the military targets, and the Ukrainians resistance not only didn't decrease, instead it grew tremendously, and so Russians are moving onto non-military targets like civil government offices, TV station, etc). > Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences stay strong, don't fall for Putin's propaganda. Wrt. the original article - Russia doesn't have much of new hardware which it has been showcasing over the last years. Most of Russian hardware like planes and armor are somewhat modernized old USSR hardware, and even that mostly is not working due to lacking parts, bad technical service, etc. Now spread this over large territory as you can't leave airforce say in Far East naked. So whatever Russia could have mustered without severe impact to its overall military capability over the whole territory was barely enough only for the originally planned Blitzkrieg, and the Blitzkrieg has utterly failed.
notyourday 5y ago
If want to avoid massive casualties among civilians, it is very difficult to hit a Buk sitting between two buildings. One needs to be pretty insane to use air force against targets until Buk systems aren't destroyed.
jacksonkmarley 5y ago
> Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry. maybe the plan is: d) cut ukraine in half, let a weaker and beaten 'neutral' western Ukraine be the new NATO buffer, and eastern Ukraine is annexed?
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? I don't think it's that simple. Sure, conscripts were told to expect a welcome in streets lined with natives waving Russian flags. Maybe some in high command even thought that was a possibility. But they have backup plans; we've seen only the first click of the ratchet. Escalate, pause; escalate, pause. This happened in Chechnya too. Putin didn't invent this approach. And Putin didn't invent the idea that Ukraine is not a separate state, but a part of Russia. He's written history books, I gather; I might be interested in reading one, but I suspect they're hard to get hold of just now.
- drran 5y ago
  Ukraine IS Russia. Russian Federation doesn't contain a region named «Russia». Russia formed when Oleg from Novgorod killed Ascold and Dir (rulers of Kyїv) in 852AD, captured Kyїv, then called it as «mother of (new) Russian cities». When Moscow tsar Petro I captured original Russia (now Ukraine), he appended «tsar of all Russia» to his tittle. Then Catherine II renamed Moscow kingdom to Russian Empire. So, in short, RF is Russian, not Russia.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rixed 5y ago
  After such a long civil war in Ukraine I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know already exactly what to expect from who.
andjd 5y ago
I'm not sure that explains it. The article asks why the Russian air force wasn't used to destroy Ukrainian _military_ targets. If bombing an air base causes substantial civilian casualties, then it's because that country brought in civilians to the site to use a meat shield.
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
All your variants are based on the assumption that Russia wants to stay in Ukraine. From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal. Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically. People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other countries next are completely delusional. Russia is a small economy and has no chance of winning an open conflict with NATO. You may not like Putin but he's definitely not suicidal.
- cmurf 5y ago
  It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine. It's a violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter. At worst it could be made neutral territory and put in U.N. peacekeeping troops. Two world wars were fought over this issue of just rolling tanks into people's backyards and then staking claim to the land. The sole purpose of these agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (and a founding member of the U.N.) is to prevent exactly what they are doing. It's bad enough the response to Russia's 2009 invasion of Georgia and 2014 invasion of Ukraine came with tepid responses - but it's not OK to just roll over and change borders as an exchange for stopping aggressive war. It would be rewarding that behavior. The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    > It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukraine since 8 years, in fact Ukraine bombed and harassed them for years, killing civilians and destroying residential areas, without managing to pull them back. Ukraine is permanently split in 2, like it or not. The west can hide their head under the sand for 8 more years, the situation won't change. > The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to. That's probably what Russia hopes, as the sanctions are going to cause devastating economical damage in Europe. Russia can just turn to China and other Eurasia countries to sell gas and oil, we don't have alternatives. Without Russia's gas, both Germany and Italy will suffer heavy consequences, dragging Europe with them. We haven't even seen the sanctions Russia will apply on us. We're not going to like it, trust me. And I have NO intention f sacrificing myself because Biden or the european burocrats (who never gave a single fuck about me) ask for it. I seriously hope this situation will cause a break up between Europe and the USA. It's time for an Eurasia era.

by jl6 5y ago

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
- Steltek 5y ago
  So much is hard to verify but I think there's reason to believe that the vehicle was Ukranian. It lacked the V Z etc white letters and it was a lone anti-aircraft vehicle wandering through the city, not something that's put right on the battle line. Again, hard to know what's truth and propaganda. Either way, that vehicle was fairly out of control so regardless of who was driving it, I don't think it was intentional.
- unnouinceput 5y ago
  It was actually an accident. The tank was Ukrainian and the driver had very poor visibility, hence the swerve on top of civilian (70+ senior actually, that miraculously didn't got any injury) car.
  - high_pathetic 5y ago
    Russian tank - deliberate run-over. Blast about it from all media channels. Oh, it's a Ukrainian tank. Pfft, it was in a accident, let's not talk about it. That's why I don't read/watch news, especially nowadays.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      I mean it’s pretty hard to avoid the ‘news’ since just about everything is a ‘news’ source these days, but it is fairly easy to just assess the data provided and leave the interpretation for more facts to arrive. Video: tank runs over car. Gut reaction? Bit of horror, concern. Judgement? Reserve
    - woah 5y ago
      Ukraine wouldn't be putting 70 year olds in tanks if it wasn't being invaded in an unprovoked war by a much larger neighbor (and no, the goal of punishing NATO for not giving Russia a blank check to invade Ukraine by invading Ukraine is not a valid provocation).
      - high_pathetic 5y ago
        70+ year old was in the car, not in the tank.
MikeHolman 5y ago
The civilian casualties are obviously tragic, but they are not beyond the scale that we've seen in recent wars the US has fought.

ironcurtain 5y ago

Considering that there are millions of Russians there and 10-15 millions of Russian-Ukrainians, yes. South and East will not only accept but accept it gladly. West and center is a different story but then the area was always controlled by outside power - western provinces by Austria and Poland, Kiev and its surrounds - by Russian Empire. Give it 10-15 years and absence of rabid nationalistic media and things will change.

yks 5y ago

This is a war of hatred towards Ukrainians from Putin. Therefore he's both 1) not expecting resistance because enemies are dehumanized and weak according to his worldview, 2) probably ready to start genocide if enemies resist too much, after all, Holodomor happened less than a century ago.

AlexandrB 5y ago
My pet theory is that, in addition to (1), Putin believed his own propaganda and thought that the Ukrainian people (and even parts of the Ukrainian military) would welcome Russia with open arms. This is somewhat backed up by Putin urging the Ukrainian military to perform a coup on the second day of the war[1]. [1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-overthrow-leaders/ https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/putin-urges-ukraine-military-to-o...
- ashwagary 5y ago
  According to reports on French news channels, Zelenskyy is considered a puppet by a large % of the population in eastern Ukraine and they are welcoming a Russian invasion. Years ago, I was also suprised to hear people in Crimea celebrating post-Russian take over. This topic was never covered (at least I had seen no mention) in American media during the Crimean invasion.
  - sharikous 5y ago
    If you want to understand a topic you have to hear all sides. Yep there is substance in some Russian points - Ukraine is, somewhat, artificial as a country (bear with me) - In Crimea a lot of people celebrated the takeover. The referendum was rigged but there was a tangible popular support - In Donbass some people are not really fans of the Ukrainian government. I know people from Donetsk that prefer the Russians - People in Donbass suffered from continuous shelling from Ukrainian forces (I don't want to emphasize the "Nazi" affiliation of the Azov brigade because it's a propaganda point but yes, there have been incidents and civilians suffered). Donbass reminds me of Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and I can see both sides - Yes EU and the US pushed for bringing Ukraine into the West and funded their people there - There is definitely a very high level of corruption in Ukraine, especially in the political echelon. Some EU-friendly policies have been obtained by corruption That said I agree with most of the criticism of Putin's regime too. And of course invading a country that is becoming more democratic precisely because they want to defend themselves from you is a crime. And Ukraine is a bit artificial (not 100% artificial but it's not a country with an established culture and identity) but it's exactly those events, like this war, that make it more and more real. The Ukrainian identity is becoming stronger and stronger hour by hour.

tguvot 5y ago

maybe they were avoiding in few first days, but gloves are off now because they are failing to advance. planes are bombing cities in residential areas (i have relatives in kharkiv). heavy artillery, etc. there is footage that looks like footage from WWII, of residential neighborhoods of apartment complexes in rubble and half collapsed buildings on fire.

akimball 5y ago
This is destroying Putin's legitimacy in Russia too
- tguvot 5y ago
  nothing of it reported. use google translate to browse ria ru
  - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
    Can't access it even with Google translate from Europe. What a sad day for the so-called free world. Edit: works with Yandex translate
    - tguvot 5y ago
      jump over here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30536790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30536790
      - pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        awesome thanks

hgomersall 5y ago

I still can't see how (b) doesn't still lead to (c). He needs to control the security apparatus, and that means essentially being an occupying force. It's not like the Ukrainians have not already have their security trampled all over already, so the usual limits on a popular uprising are gone already.

raducu 5y ago
You have no idea about the darkness and effectiveness of modern tyranny. Russia is pretty much North Korea in democracy at this point or they will become so very soon. Putin wants the sanctions to be over. His next move will be to create devastation in Ukraine and hold civilians as hostages for the lifting of the sanctions. In anycase, Russia will controll South of Ukraine, link up with Transnistria and even if they don't take Kyiev and don't force Kyiev into peace negociations, the will secure such a strong position that absolute control won't matter
- sharikous 5y ago
  That's insightful and cynic. Possibly right too. But why "modern tyranny"? Wars like that are not a novelty... or is it about taking civilians as hostages?
  - raducu 5y ago
    Because with modern technology oppression is a lot more efficient than before. Not says that it was not in thr past.
- Mirioron 5y ago
  If Russia manages to occupy Ukraine through repressions then wouldn't this invite Chechnya 2.0, but with 30x the people? Can the Russian state even survive something like that?
  - raducu 5y ago
    Yes it would, but those able to would eventually leave the country and those peope left will tire out, run out of money and will. I don't know what Putin thinks at this stage, I think he desperately needs a win to restore some credibility back home. I'd say he's going to invade Moldova in the next few days (once Odessa is taken) and make a big show of how easily they took it to restore morale, and very soon after they're going to plunge in Ukraine's back and make a big push for Kyiev. I think they might abandon installing a puppet government, but in that case they will bring devastation to Ukraine and keep the whole Black Sea coast, and just let Ucraine fester.

ChildOfChaos 5y ago

I mean all I see when I look online is Russia attacking Civilians and not caring who they attack. Yes there is a degree of restraint because they are trying to take the country over, they cannot burn it to the ground, but they don’t really seem to care about civilians and keep committing war crimes, just now they directly bombed near a hotel and train station, people trying to flee the country. Saying they are ‘pro-civillian’ seems far fetched and doesn’t seem to match the facts The British government is leading a 38-nation referral of Russia to the ICC to probe war crimes and a direct quote from the British Government foreign secretary just now reads: “Putin’s military machine is targeting civilians indiscriminately and tearing through towns across Ukraine"

lmohseni 5y ago
We have footage of cluster bombs striking civilian apartment buildings in Kharkiv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw
- throwawayay02 5y ago
  There are counter claims that that building was being used for recruitment for the Azov battalion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tguvot 5y ago
    like seriously, lol. their intelligence were crappy enough to miss a bunch of air defense systems but they know that in some specific building is an recruitment for azov
    - akho 5y ago
      The specific building is the regional administration, and recruitment there was advertised in Ukrainian telegram channels. All that excuses nothing.

BaseballPhysics 5y ago

> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly This is my take as well. The obvious contrast is their handling of Kiev versus how they utterly flattened Grozny. It's clear to me that in the early days Russia was hoping for a quick and decisive win. They'd decapitate the government, install a puppet regime, and then hope the public would roll over. That hasn't happened and we're now entering a much more bloody phase of indiscriminate bombing/shelling of the civilian population.

ethbr0 5y ago
> ... Grozny... The Russian Army didn't initially flatten Grozny with artillery either. It was only after a failed assault that they switched to methodical urban destruction. Which is why racheting up sanctions and worse ASAP is important... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995)#Russian_advance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80...
kubav 5y ago
Actually real attack on Kiev have not started yet. Ukrainians probably deliberately let Russian army to get close to the Kiev and than destroyed all supply convoys for Russian vehicles. I have this info from one of the journalist who were close to Belarus border in the beginning of the invasion. First he wrote article about how hopeless situation is because he rode a few hours to Kiev before seeing first defense. But after two days all the attacks on Kiev stopped so it probably was smart strategy to make supply lines too long to defend them. Even on Monday he reported that only shelling he saw was from Ukrainian army.

Steltek 5y ago

I figured it was that concerted civilian targeting will force NATO to act. Or perhaps that the close ties between the two countries is still somewhat able to override Putin's shitty bloodthirsty instincts in some ways.

jacquesm 5y ago
I'm beginning to doubt that.
empressplay 5y ago
When Biden said in the SOTU that Americans were going to be okay he basically put the last nail in the coffin of NATO intervention, sorry guys

austhrow743 5y ago

>Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? Iirc Ukraine had a government that was subordinate to Russia as recently as 2014. Belarus is still a Russian puppet. The Transnistria region of Moldova to Ukraine's south is largely welcoming of Russian military control. Doesn't seem too outlandish for them to assume that to me.

jacquesm 5y ago
That would be an epic failure of Russian intelligence. Alternative take: they knew but didn't dare to tell Putin. Don't underestimate the isolation of strongmen.
cguess 5y ago
That government in 2014 was violently overthrown by a popular rebellion. Unlikely they'd be greeting Russians as liberators after that.

danenania 5y ago

I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the borders, Russia will be playing whack-a-mole against insurgency forever no matter how much force they use. Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw. It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
google234123 5y ago
Yo be fair, those insurgencies did kind of have access to safe zones (Pakistan is next to Afghanistan) and a good supply of weapons which definitely helped them.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  It was, however, nothing close to the levels of support Ukraine is getting. And those insurgencies faced a vastly superior US armed forces.
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    Those American forces also had vastly longer supply lines to sustain. What the Russians lack in financing and capability, the make up a lot with proximate borders, time zones, etc.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      It’s interesting because the U.S. has an order of magnitude more military funding and was trying to secure a supply line an order of magnitude longer. I wonder if this ratio makes it approximately as difficult?

Cd00d 5y ago

suzerainty You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one. a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy

zh3 5y ago
Let's not lose sight of the points being made.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
8ytecoder 5y ago
I bet OP plays Civilization.
jihadjihad 5y ago
It's an exquisite word. I too was ignorant of its existence until I played Civilization VI, where you can become the suzerain of a city-state.
- Karsteski 5y ago
  I also only know the word suzerain from Civ VI haha. Certainly learnt a lot more history and gained a lot more interest in historical texts after playing Civ, far more so than school ever did....
- labster 5y ago
  I learned “revanchist” from Europa Universalis IV and it has been a pretty useful word in the past week.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I might not have an IR degree, but for the first time I feel like playing Crusader Kings and Civilization has finally paid off.

tablespoon 5y ago

> I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences. That doesn't explain this, though: > Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts. > After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses. > That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force." > Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace. ... > Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time. Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.

jihadjihad 5y ago
I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I agree, and it might be the case that since they lost any element of surprise due to their moves being telegraphed by Western intelligence, it greatly undermined any speed they were hoping to make use of. It's unclear to me how much of that time Ukraine used to prepare. If they did, they didn't telegraph it. What I read was the Russian amphibious landing in the south was done 30-40 miles away from the target city (or kilometers, can't remember the unit). Apparently they wanted the space to get organized. However that meant the city had extra time to prepare after the actual invasion started.

raducu 5y ago

Let's face it, Russian airforce, russian army and russian equipment suck, but are good enough in this situation. The Emperor Putler has no clothes.

ashwagary 5y ago
I've seen reports that Russia's only deployed 5-10% of their forces. This might be a slow steady escalation to allow evacuations of civilians and test the endurance of battalion forces. Any victories for Ukrainian forces may be short lived, as Russia seems to be using this opportunity to guage hot and cold zones.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  ~80% of assembled combat force, from the sources I've read [0] [0] http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment.html?m=1 http://www.iswresearch.org/2022/03/russian-offensive-campaig...
- cagey 5y ago
  Having (from a US civilian POV) sought to comprehend Soviet (and now Russian) military capability from afar since the early 1980's, it has long been my perception that (due to the political system in place there and the resultant poor economy) only 5-10% of Russian/Soviet military units nominally in existence have sufficient morale, training, and full provisioning with modern equipment to engage in successful offensive operations. In other words, that 5-10% of their units are lavished with the best people, training and weapons, and the remaining units make do with sub-par everything (at best). Is the above an inaccurate perception?
  - monocasa 5y ago
    But their doctrine isn't to start with the with the well trained and equipped 5-10%, but instead a bunch of conscripts that that soak up some material, and then send in the competent soldiers.
    - 5y ago

risyachka 5y ago

>> and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing they do not. Their policy is not pro-civilian at all. These are facts that you can see on the streets, no fog of war here. They are are bombing residential areas for DAYS without stopping. And I know, my best friends are in Kyiv and Kharkiv how. Also there was a missile strike on the railway in Kyiv where people are evacuated. Civilian people. Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"Not sure why you think they are pro-civilian even on some level. " It is, when you compare it with syria or chechnya.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face Recognize the annexation of Crimea and promise immediate sanctions rollbacks the moment the last Russian troop leaves Ukraine (other than Donbas and Luhansk, that ship has sailed).

kyboren 5y ago
I also think this is the most viable offramp. Everyone gets to plausibly claim victory, if not total victory. Russia keeps the money pit dear to the hearts of many Russians and doesn't become a Chinese vassal state. Ukraine ends the bloodshed and saves their sovereignty for the cost of what they have already lost. There will be sticking points, for sure, notably around Putin himself, reparations, and yes, the status of DPR and LPR, but I hold out hope that they don't forestall a potential deal.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Sorry, but I don't think there's an offramp. I can't see the Russian leadership backing down from their stated goals. That means they have to subdue Ukraine, and probably Finland, Estonia and Poland too. If they don't win in at least Ukraine, then they have lost badly, and their economy is destroyed. I don't think they'll settle now for a piece of Crimea or a piece of Donbas. The entire story is that the whole of Ukraine is a bogus state.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > Finland, Estonia and Poland That would be a hell of an escalation. Emphasis on hell. Estonia and Poland are NATO members, which means WW3. And attacking Finland, though not yet a NATO member, would probably invite the largest response from Europe in memory. World war indeed.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > which means WW3. Customarily, it's been called a "World War" when both sides have participants from multiple nations. As far as I'm aware, Russia's only ally would be Belarus, which looks to me like a Russian province in all but name. "WWIII" is a term that also refers to Global Thermonuclear War; if that's what you meant, then I apologise for being pedantic. [Edit] No attack on Poland or the Baltic states is possible without first subduing Ukraine; so I don't think that's at all imminent. But I wouldn't be surprised if Russia pops a tactical nuke or two in Ukraine, then all bets will be off.

csense 5y ago

Don't forget about option (d), try to kill everyone in Ukraine. Less than 100 years have passed since Stalin attempted exactly that, by killing all the farmers and selling all the food.

jihadjihad 5y ago
It's hard to know what that would serve to accomplish, considering it contradicts Putin's entire ethos for invading in the first place: he fundamentally views Ukrainians as culturally Russian, and wants to bring them back "into the fold." His entire rhetoric is adamant about that--it's why he uses words like genocide when talking about eastern Ukraine. I can't see how (d), which in effect would be genocide, would do anything but erode any possibility of support for the war effort, considering the family ties to Ukraine held by Russian nationals.
- tuatoru 5y ago
  Rhetoric is rhetoric: it provides a smokescreen. Geostrategically, Putin wants what every ruler of Russia has wanted since it was the Principality of Muscovy: control of the North European Plain, in order to prevent invasion from the west.[1][2] An empty, derelict Ukraine would serve nearly as well as a puppet state for this purpose. 1. It's worth reading some geography and history. Russia has been invaded a lot, and has a justifiable fear of invasion. Sure, the West might not want to invade now, but who can predict what the situation will be in 2070 or 2170? 2. Putin also wants to maintain the viability of Russia's warm-water port at Sevastopol. The Crimean peninsula was formerly supplied with water by a canal from Ukraine, but that was blocked after Russia annexed Crimea, and Crimea is now desperately short of water. And there is the small matter of major unexploited gas fields in the Black Sea between Crimea and (the rest of) Ukraine...
  - chupy 5y ago
    He does not need to prevent invasion from the west, just having the nukes automatically prevents that and he knows it. One of the first thing the Russians did was unblock that canal that Ukraine cemented. That plus them sending cannon fodder to the nord and what seems like better troops south + east starts to feel like this whole war is more about a resource grab than to "prevent invasion from the west". I could maybe understand one madman feeling like he wants to rebuild the past USSR glory but if it's all about the money that can be made from oil/gas then it's clear it's not just him driving this.

vbezhenar 5y ago

Ukraine population is brain washed by west propaganda. They’ll brain wash them with Russian propaganda and that’s about it. It’s all about controlling the media.

e40 5y ago

> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? > Their options seems to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry. > We need to find a variant of (a) that allows Putin to save face, because his default will be (b). This is precisely the conclusion I've come to. I think the only (a) is give him some territory. That seems unlikely. Perhaps retake all of Crimea and then give him part of it? I'm really worried about (b). I have 3 friends/coworkers there.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing This doesn't explain Russia's lack of air superiority as well as the hypothesis proposed by the paper on which this article is based [1]: a lack of precision munitions, the risk of Ground Force SAMs causing friendly fire due to bad coordination between the branches and a lack of pilot training leading to those planes not being battle ready. [1] https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar...

anothernewdude 5y ago

> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local resistance. They're hitting a lot of hospitals and civilian infrastructure. As per their typical operating procedures, c.f. Syria.

phtrivier 5y ago

In all fairness, "invade assuming the people will chant you to power" sounds a lot like GWB statregy back in 2003... We made lots of jokes back then.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

> It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. That doesn't apply to apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. The shelling is very intense in multiple cities. So yes, most Russians aren't directly firing on people in the street, but in larger cities they're destroying their homes and local infrastructure.

laichzeit0 5y ago
So the school bombings are easily justified. I saw two separate pictures on Reddit yesterday where Ukrainian soldiers are prepping in a school gym (think it was a basketball court). Like selfie shots from a Ukrainian soldier. Look Im pro Ukraine. Out of interest I joined a bunch of Telegram groups that are “pro Russian” to see how both sides see the conflict. There is a lot of information you’re missing out on if you just look at mainstream news. Like the school thing. Maybe I’m being redpilled. It was a weird eye opening experience for me. Edit: here it is https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrainian_soldiers_in_what_appears_to_be_a_school/ https://www.reddit.com/r/warinukraine/comments/t52e62/ukrain... There’s also another video of a school attack aftermath. Dead Ukrainian solders in the school. Looks like it was close quarter combat.

trhway 5y ago

>It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. As a way of self-preservation. USSR lost 13K people in 10 years of Afghanistan war. Russia has already lost 6K in 7 days of Ukraine war. Ukrainians are fighting in whatever way they can and tearing Russians a new one. Among the first questions they ask Russian POWs is "Did you shoot?" >I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, Russia is running out of high precision weapons, and this one of the reason of them starting to use older non high precision weapons and thus corresponding rise in civilian hits (with the other reason being is that they have already stricken most of the military targets, and the Ukrainians resistance not only didn't decrease, instead it grew tremendously, and so Russians are moving onto non-military targets like civil government offices, TV station, etc). > Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences stay strong, don't fall for Putin's propaganda. Wrt. the original article - Russia doesn't have much of new hardware which it has been showcasing over the last years. Most of Russian hardware like planes and armor are somewhat modernized old USSR hardware, and even that mostly is not working due to lacking parts, bad technical service, etc. Now spread this over large territory as you can't leave airforce say in Far East naked. So whatever Russia could have mustered without severe impact to its overall military capability over the whole territory was barely enough only for the originally planned Blitzkrieg, and the Blitzkrieg has utterly failed.

notyourday 5y ago

If want to avoid massive casualties among civilians, it is very difficult to hit a Buk sitting between two buildings. One needs to be pretty insane to use air force against targets until Buk systems aren't destroyed.

jacksonkmarley 5y ago

> Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry. maybe the plan is: d) cut ukraine in half, let a weaker and beaten 'neutral' western Ukraine be the new NATO buffer, and eastern Ukraine is annexed?

denton-scratch 5y ago

> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule? I don't think it's that simple. Sure, conscripts were told to expect a welcome in streets lined with natives waving Russian flags. Maybe some in high command even thought that was a possibility. But they have backup plans; we've seen only the first click of the ratchet. Escalate, pause; escalate, pause. This happened in Chechnya too. Putin didn't invent this approach. And Putin didn't invent the idea that Ukraine is not a separate state, but a part of Russia. He's written history books, I gather; I might be interested in reading one, but I suspect they're hard to get hold of just now.

drran 5y ago
Ukraine IS Russia. Russian Federation doesn't contain a region named «Russia». Russia formed when Oleg from Novgorod killed Ascold and Dir (rulers of Kyїv) in 852AD, captured Kyїv, then called it as «mother of (new) Russian cities». When Moscow tsar Petro I captured original Russia (now Ukraine), he appended «tsar of all Russia» to his tittle. Then Catherine II renamed Moscow kingdom to Russian Empire. So, in short, RF is Russian, not Russia.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rixed 5y ago
After such a long civil war in Ukraine I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know already exactly what to expect from who.

andjd 5y ago

I'm not sure that explains it. The article asks why the Russian air force wasn't used to destroy Ukrainian _military_ targets. If bombing an air base causes substantial civilian casualties, then it's because that country brought in civilians to the site to use a meat shield.

pastacacioepepe 5y ago

All your variants are based on the assumption that Russia wants to stay in Ukraine. From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal. Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically. People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other countries next are completely delusional. Russia is a small economy and has no chance of winning an open conflict with NATO. You may not like Putin but he's definitely not suicidal.

cmurf 5y ago
It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine. It's a violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter. At worst it could be made neutral territory and put in U.N. peacekeeping troops. Two world wars were fought over this issue of just rolling tanks into people's backyards and then staking claim to the land. The sole purpose of these agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (and a founding member of the U.N.) is to prevent exactly what they are doing. It's bad enough the response to Russia's 2009 invasion of Georgia and 2014 invasion of Ukraine came with tepid responses - but it's not OK to just roll over and change borders as an exchange for stopping aggressive war. It would be rewarding that behavior. The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  > It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukraine since 8 years, in fact Ukraine bombed and harassed them for years, killing civilians and destroying residential areas, without managing to pull them back. Ukraine is permanently split in 2, like it or not. The west can hide their head under the sand for 8 more years, the situation won't change. > The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to. That's probably what Russia hopes, as the sanctions are going to cause devastating economical damage in Europe. Russia can just turn to China and other Eurasia countries to sell gas and oil, we don't have alternatives. Without Russia's gas, both Germany and Italy will suffer heavy consequences, dragging Europe with them. We haven't even seen the sanctions Russia will apply on us. We're not going to like it, trust me. And I have NO intention f sacrificing myself because Biden or the european burocrats (who never gave a single fuck about me) ask for it. I seriously hope this situation will cause a break up between Europe and the USA. It's time for an Eurasia era.