12 ms·

Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission

74 points by sofixa 5y ago

vogre 5y ago
- me_me_me 5y ago
  This post is all over the place, sounds more like armchair general then anything else. > There are rules of war. Rules of war? What? Russians are breaking Geneva Conventions everyday, target civilians fleeing 'the wrong way', usage of mines cluster bombs, terror hit-squads attacking civ and press. They stopped playing by the rules the moment they invaded sovereign country - even US uses plausible excuses before invading a country to have some credibility. > If you are arming civilians with hand weapons, you are just killing them. Yes if you send them out to a frontline. This is urban combat, partisan attacks and quick retreat. Its completely different reality to open field fights. > No militia can resist regular army. Tell that to the Afghan villagers, they only fought US and Russia and won both times.
  - vogre 5y ago
    - glogla 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - vogre 5y ago
        [flagged]
      - nickthegreek 5y ago
        You can attack someone'e argument without calling them inhuman garbage. Please do better.
      - dang 5y ago
        You can't post like this to HN. I realize feelings are strong right now. At the same time, you have a history of breaking the site guidelines and we've had to warn you about this repeatedly in the past, so it isn't just about this war. Attacking another user like that is obviously a bannable offence, but I'm not going to ban you for it right now. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to HN's rules, though, or we will end up having to.
    - insickness 5y ago
      > Usage of cluster bombs is unproved. You claim this is unproved yet make unsubstantiated claims yourself: >The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda.
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  Russians shouldn't be there. They invaded independent country. Entire fault is on them. Period. Trying to spin the fact that civilian population wants to defend their country and everything they have in life against Ukrainian government is honestly disgusting. It's hard to grasp like someone working in highly logical field such as software development could be so soaked with propaganda. Turn off the TV comrade.
  - 331c8c71 5y ago
    - dzikimarian 5y ago
      > So they choose to remain in heavily bombed areas to protect their troops stationed there that's what you are suggesting? Many of them - yes - obviously they don't have troops to win this war, and civilian population is joining. I was personally helping people on the border and while many of them flees, also many travels from the west into Ukraine to help. Not sure why it surprises you - this is quite common in such desperate situation - they are loosing their own country due to pure greed of Russia. I don't need twitter. I can see results of last Russian visit in my country through the window. My parents and grandparents suffered a lot due to this fact. Nobody wanted Russia then and nobody wants it now in Ukraine. Go home. Stop killing innocent people.
- insickness 5y ago
  > Then defenders should let civilians out by any possible way. If they doesn't, they are not the defenders but butchers. I don't agree that this includes sending those civilians to Russia, as Russia is a trying to get them to do. > The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda. Do you have some sources for this?
jacquesm 5y ago
The number of warcrimes committed by the Russians is astounding. But shooting at fleeing civilians has to earn you a very special place in hell. This is pure blackmail, and it won't stop here.
- deepsun 5y ago
  They did it previously, in Chechnya, in Debaltsevo. No one did anything, besides "seriously concerned of reports".
  - misja111 5y ago
    Exactly. In Chechnya the Russians continued to bomb Grozny until the whole city was a ruin and people surrendered. The UN called Grozny 'the most destroyed city on earth'. But there were almost no consequences for Russia, the world just stood by and did nothing.
    - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
      That's how urban warfare goes. Either prolonged Sarajevo-style siege waiting for surrender, or brutal block by block demolition until there's no place where defenders can fire from. The logic of urban warfare hasn't really changed since Stalingrad or Berlin It's also likely the reason the Russian advance stalled. Neither party really wants to go through that hell
      - misja111 5y ago
        Exactly. I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city.
        sofixa 5y ago
        > I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city. Unless they expected a surrender ( which seems to be the case - they had advanced paratroop drops and logistics and rations drastically unprepared for a longer term battle,potentially with the help of special ops murdering Zelensky), why even go there then? Nobody sane starts a war with the idea of long term destructive urban fighting. Especially live streamed urban fighting. There's nothing for Russia to win there, so if that was really their plan, it's even stupider.
Aeolun 5y ago
This seems likely, but I have a hard time thinking of what to do about it. I’m long past the point where I’d be fine calling their bluff, but the same thing does not seem to be true for our elected leaders (probably why I’m not one of those).
- parineum 5y ago
  We could have put troops in the country before the invasion.
  - alephnan 5y ago
    Isn’t that exactly the kind of the arrogance of the West pushing the boundaries as the East has argued is its red line ?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - lmm 5y ago
      Well not posting troops in Ukraine doesn't seem to have stopped Ukraine getting invaded does it? So it seems that was empty rhetoric.
      - alephnan 5y ago
        The red line was the expansion of the West. Putting troops in Ukraine is one way of satisfying that. The encroachment of NATO was another. Whether that is true or not, it would have given more weight to Russia/Putin’s argument than stuff about Nazis.
        tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        The thing is defence spending in Europe has plummeted since the fall of the Soviet Union. The threat from the West was never a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
draw_down 5y ago
shmageggy 5y ago
It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted and being unable to stop it (due to the threat of nuclear war). It's like standing on a train track and seeing an oncoming train miles away and yet being unable to move. So many (more) Ukrainians are about to die or suffer horribly, and much of the physical history and cultural artifacts of that city will be destroyed.
- alephnan 5y ago
  > It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose. Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    There has been a lot of hopeful, and daresay wishful thinking so far, but even Boris Johnson was warning of this potentiality a couple of days into the invasion, and I doubt that thought had only just occurred. > ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-politics-live-dominic-raab-russia-war-crimes-warning-ukraine-invasion https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
  - neuronic 5y ago
    Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology (unite the ethnically Russian people). Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war. Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China. It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
But the leafleting campaign has been going so well! This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion. The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons are in play. If not for that the Russians would have to face the rest of Europe and possibly other countries as well.
  - alephnan 5y ago
    Well isn’t that exactly the game dynamic and prisoner’s dilemma? What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma? Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ). The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
  - adhesive_wombat 5y ago
    Sure, nuclear weapons exist in the context of the war, but what I mean is that the alternative to protracted standoff bombing of cities into rubble is a nuclear attack (which is basically the same thing but faster). I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
  - amitport 5y ago
    Would they? If US + NATO open war on Russia it may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) even if nuclear weapons are not used.
s5300 5y ago
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  Whoopi, is that you?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rlt 5y ago
I don’t understand all the history and nuance of the situation, but I feel incredibly guilty on behalf of the west for courting Ukraine for admission to NATO / EU, but leaving them in a very precarious and vulnerable position in the meantime. It’s just an impossible and sad situation.
- alephnan 5y ago
  NATO and by that we mean the United States has always been in ambiguous and uncommitted relationships with countries. Their communication is very subtle and succinct. It’s the same with Taiwan. They do not deny China’s claim to Taiwan, but that is logically not equivalent to saying they accept China’s claim to Taiwan. They use language that is convenient for the politicians of those countries to appease their constituents while maintaining the status quo and pushing the can down the road. Biden said he agreed in principle to meet if Putin has not already invaded Ukraine. That’s a weirdly structured sentence if you think about it. In plain English, the sentence seem logically equivalent to “only if”, but if we are focused on pure logic, then Biden can still meet Russia despite Russia having invaded.
  - rlt 5y ago
    Is it subtle? Wikipedia says Ukraine was in the “Intensified Dialog” phase which apparently means they are engaged in ‘discussion of a "full range of political, military, financial and security issues relating to possible NATO membership“‘ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensified_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensif...
    - alephnan 5y ago
      So is it bureaucracy holdup or a matter of negotiations?
      - dgellow 5y ago
        Negotiations, but mostly one sided. Country bordering Russia such as Ukraine have been invaded in the past during USSR time and are in fear of being invaded again (for good reasons as we all know now). They want to be part of an alliance like NATO to protect themselves, thus start the negotiation process. But NATO is aware that would be seen by Russia as a red-line to not cross, Putin has been more than clear on this topic for a while, threatening to use nukes multiple time during the last 15years or so. Because of this NATO communicated quite clearly that Ukraine won’t be able to join any time soon, which means never, but keeps negotiations open.
usrme 5y ago
I really wish Putin would give a long and hard think over the letter[1] that Nikita Khrushchev sent to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. An excerpt: "If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, *we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied*. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose." --- [1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html
- alkonaut 5y ago
  The difference back then appears to be that while there were different philosophies (e.g.capitalist vs socialist) neither saw the existence of the other as an existential threat other than through war. Putin (And perhaps more Dugin or other Orthodox "influencers") now seem to think that the mere existence of a liberal ukraine (say, Gay parades in Kyiev) is an existential threat, regardless of whether it would ever spread to Russia proper. That changes the balance between a "them" and "us". To Putin this means there can be no status Quo. The russian Empire can't be humiliated by having a liberal /"westernized" part that also happens to be a historical cradle of Russian culture. If the premise of Russia(n leadership) is that it's better that there is no world at all than a world where Russia isn't an traditionalist empire including Ukraine, then the situation is MUCH harder to defuse than anything during the Cold War.
gorgoiler 5y ago
As a more naive armchair strategist, I used to think wars were about the best weapons and tactics. The old saying is that real generals think about logistics, not tactics. The implication is that it is logistics for their troops that is the concern. Now I see that the true strategic advantage for a nation under attack is not only to have a fighting force that is dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attribution, but to also have a population that are dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attrition. Every man is given a rifle and a helmet. Moreover, every citizen is given a water sanitizer, energy dense food, and a shelter.
yyyk 5y ago
That's the Syria playbook - which was quietly supported by the US/Europe. Our sins come back at us.
simon_000666 5y ago
I’m surprised there is no technical solution to shell-ing. Some kind of autonomous anti-shell gun that shoots them down mid flight? It seems like a fairly common problem.
- misja111 5y ago
  You mean something like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS or the Iron Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome An Iron Dome was actually ordered by Ukraine but Israel blocked the transaction.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    I hate their position right now... shows how unreliable partner to west they are when real SHTF
    - stephen999 5y ago
      This will only work for a very unbalanced exchange though where the attacker has way fewer resources. The cost of an iron dome intercept will be far higher than that of an artillery shell. In an exchange of equally resourced opponents the attacker will quickly overwhelm the defense capabilities.
- wiseowise 5y ago
  Phalanx?
- ketralnis 5y ago
  The "solution" is controlling the airspace so you can easily shoot back
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Tanks have active protection systems. Practically they are little grenade launchers that trace and obliterate the oncoming projectile.
irrational 5y ago
And then what? He is expecting that Europe and the USA will just lift the sanctions afterwards?
- alephnan 5y ago
  And then what? Is Europe and the USA expecting that he will just stop the invasion afterwards?
jl6 5y ago
I can’t understand how Putin would be able to pay for the reconstruction costs of the immense damage he’s causing, leading me to assume he intends to dismember the country, take the southern and eastern parts that he wants, and hand the ruin over to the west for us to foot the bill.
- oblio 5y ago
  The most valuable thing in a country are people. South Korea was poorer than North Korea in 1950. I'm willing to bet $100 that if Russia only takes some regions from Ukraine and does not touch the rest in any way, by 2050 the remaining parts of Ukraine will be at least 2x as prosperous as the parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia and probably also at least 2x as prosperous as Russia itself.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  this is my take as well.
hughrr 5y ago
Even if he succeeds in that, what is the end game? You now have an immutable hard border on one side of your country, are knee deep in sanctions which will not evaporate and another giant nation ready to take advantage of your poor position on the other side because they’re the only people who will even touch you with a 20 foot long stick. On top of that you have to now commit resources to permanently securing a whole another country which doesn’t want you in it and is being supplied with superior weapons from just about everyone else on the planet. Putin just sold the whole nation into poverty, slavery and decay. This is what we generally call a galactic scale fuck up.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  This is recency bias. We imposed sanctions after the invasion of Crimea too, those eventually went away. In time these will too. I don't expect the West to be so well behaved that it can go on very long without cheap oil and gas.
  - EastSmith 5y ago
    Current sanctions are orders of magnitude larger. From last hour: "Credit rating agency Fitch states that Russian default on debt is "imminent”.
zpeti 5y ago
It makes sense why Zelensky is desperately asking for fighter jets. As long as Russia doesn’t control the skies it will be difficult to bomb Kiev into submission. I hope the poles manage to get some jets to them.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Russia has moved S400 into the theater already 30 jets won’t be enough. It’s also not clear where they would be able to operate form since most airfields have been destroyed or damaged with long range missiles. It would delay the inevitable at most.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    > It would delay the inevitable at most. It would also send a signal that it's far from over.
cf141q5325 5y ago
Well yes. Artillery bombardment is THE Russian military doctrine. Any uncertainty on the headline would mean assuming Russia had developed some unusual qualms on the subject. And why would they? It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast >According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. However the government in Kiev sharply rejects the demand for neutral status. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-gespraeche-103.html https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-ge... There is an actual war. Russia wants something that the Ukrainian government sharply rejects. They are in range of multiple cities and gave evacuation notices days ago. What do you think will happen next? Why wouldnt the next step be Grozny? Because the western public is outraged and appalled? Because those things dont happen in todays day and age? There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach. If Ukraine continues to resist the very likely result is that it will burn. Feelings and stories dont change any of that. Russian artillery will likely turn house after house, street after street and city after city into rubble. Not some individual shelters, not some tv stations. Everything.
- MrRiddle 5y ago
  Exactly, on /r/europe I suggested exactly this would happen and how Ukrainian government should sign the deal while they still have some leverage left. I got banned from it for life because of it.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Its a stupid suggestion to put it mildly, pardon my french. There is no deal to be signed. Unless you mean complete Ukrainian surrender, being dragged into being another Russian slave like Chechnya or Belarus. Putin doesn't accept anything less. Russia is now yet another horrible dictatorship, no reason to believe Ukraine would fare any better, in fact most probably much, much worse due to resistance to this invasion. By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value. This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.
readonthegoapp 5y ago
Trump's presidency probably killed us all, but, that said, he would most likely not have gotten us into this particular war. As for headlines like this one, what's the basis? And the rest of the article doesn't mention Falluja. wts? oh, i forgot...Kyiv is a _civilized_ city.
alkonaut 5y ago
The problem with the "if I can't conquer it, I'll just level it" offense, is that there is very little defense. Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties. The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.
- HellDunkel 5y ago
  If we had set up the nofly zone beforehand that would have been a welcome invitation for putin. Now that he has broken every international law these playbook rules are meaningless.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    > If we had set up the nofly zone beforehand that would have been a welcome invitation for putin. He did not need an invitation, after all, right?
    - HellDunkel 5y ago
      Obviously he did not need an invitation to make a gigantic mistake. This mistake would have been ours as well.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties. Even a destroyed city can fight on - Stalingrad is a great example of that.

74 points by sofixa 5y ago

me_me_me 5y ago
This post is all over the place, sounds more like armchair general then anything else. > There are rules of war. Rules of war? What? Russians are breaking Geneva Conventions everyday, target civilians fleeing 'the wrong way', usage of mines cluster bombs, terror hit-squads attacking civ and press. They stopped playing by the rules the moment they invaded sovereign country - even US uses plausible excuses before invading a country to have some credibility. > If you are arming civilians with hand weapons, you are just killing them. Yes if you send them out to a frontline. This is urban combat, partisan attacks and quick retreat. Its completely different reality to open field fights. > No militia can resist regular army. Tell that to the Afghan villagers, they only fought US and Russia and won both times.
- vogre 5y ago
  - glogla 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - vogre 5y ago
      [flagged]
    - nickthegreek 5y ago
      You can attack someone'e argument without calling them inhuman garbage. Please do better.
    - dang 5y ago
      You can't post like this to HN. I realize feelings are strong right now. At the same time, you have a history of breaking the site guidelines and we've had to warn you about this repeatedly in the past, so it isn't just about this war. Attacking another user like that is obviously a bannable offence, but I'm not going to ban you for it right now. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to HN's rules, though, or we will end up having to.
  - insickness 5y ago
    > Usage of cluster bombs is unproved. You claim this is unproved yet make unsubstantiated claims yourself: >The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda.
dzikimarian 5y ago
Russians shouldn't be there. They invaded independent country. Entire fault is on them. Period. Trying to spin the fact that civilian population wants to defend their country and everything they have in life against Ukrainian government is honestly disgusting. It's hard to grasp like someone working in highly logical field such as software development could be so soaked with propaganda. Turn off the TV comrade.
- 331c8c71 5y ago
  - dzikimarian 5y ago
    > So they choose to remain in heavily bombed areas to protect their troops stationed there that's what you are suggesting? Many of them - yes - obviously they don't have troops to win this war, and civilian population is joining. I was personally helping people on the border and while many of them flees, also many travels from the west into Ukraine to help. Not sure why it surprises you - this is quite common in such desperate situation - they are loosing their own country due to pure greed of Russia. I don't need twitter. I can see results of last Russian visit in my country through the window. My parents and grandparents suffered a lot due to this fact. Nobody wanted Russia then and nobody wants it now in Ukraine. Go home. Stop killing innocent people.
insickness 5y ago
> Then defenders should let civilians out by any possible way. If they doesn't, they are not the defenders but butchers. I don't agree that this includes sending those civilians to Russia, as Russia is a trying to get them to do. > The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda. Do you have some sources for this?

The number of warcrimes committed by the Russians is astounding. But shooting at fleeing civilians has to earn you a very special place in hell. This is pure blackmail, and it won't stop here.

deepsun 5y ago
They did it previously, in Chechnya, in Debaltsevo. No one did anything, besides "seriously concerned of reports".
- misja111 5y ago
  Exactly. In Chechnya the Russians continued to bomb Grozny until the whole city was a ruin and people surrendered. The UN called Grozny 'the most destroyed city on earth'. But there were almost no consequences for Russia, the world just stood by and did nothing.
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    That's how urban warfare goes. Either prolonged Sarajevo-style siege waiting for surrender, or brutal block by block demolition until there's no place where defenders can fire from. The logic of urban warfare hasn't really changed since Stalingrad or Berlin It's also likely the reason the Russian advance stalled. Neither party really wants to go through that hell
    - misja111 5y ago
      Exactly. I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        > I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city. Unless they expected a surrender ( which seems to be the case - they had advanced paratroop drops and logistics and rations drastically unprepared for a longer term battle,potentially with the help of special ops murdering Zelensky), why even go there then? Nobody sane starts a war with the idea of long term destructive urban fighting. Especially live streamed urban fighting. There's nothing for Russia to win there, so if that was really their plan, it's even stupider.

Aeolun 5y ago

This seems likely, but I have a hard time thinking of what to do about it. I’m long past the point where I’d be fine calling their bluff, but the same thing does not seem to be true for our elected leaders (probably why I’m not one of those).

parineum 5y ago
We could have put troops in the country before the invasion.
- alephnan 5y ago
  Isn’t that exactly the kind of the arrogance of the West pushing the boundaries as the East has argued is its red line ?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmm 5y ago
    Well not posting troops in Ukraine doesn't seem to have stopped Ukraine getting invaded does it? So it seems that was empty rhetoric.
    - alephnan 5y ago
      The red line was the expansion of the West. Putting troops in Ukraine is one way of satisfying that. The encroachment of NATO was another. Whether that is true or not, it would have given more weight to Russia/Putin’s argument than stuff about Nazis.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        The thing is defence spending in Europe has plummeted since the fall of the Soviet Union. The threat from the West was never a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.

draw_down 5y ago

shmageggy 5y ago

It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted and being unable to stop it (due to the threat of nuclear war). It's like standing on a train track and seeing an oncoming train miles away and yet being unable to move. So many (more) Ukrainians are about to die or suffer horribly, and much of the physical history and cultural artifacts of that city will be destroyed.

alephnan 5y ago
> It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose. Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
- shmageggy 5y ago
  There has been a lot of hopeful, and daresay wishful thinking so far, but even Boris Johnson was warning of this potentiality a couple of days into the invasion, and I doubt that thought had only just occurred. > ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-politics-live-dominic-raab-russia-war-crimes-warning-ukraine-invasion https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
- neuronic 5y ago
  Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology (unite the ethnically Russian people). Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war. Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China. It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

But the leafleting campaign has been going so well! This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion. The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.

jacquesm 5y ago
Nuclear weapons are in play. If not for that the Russians would have to face the rest of Europe and possibly other countries as well.
- alephnan 5y ago
  Well isn’t that exactly the game dynamic and prisoner’s dilemma? What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma? Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ). The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  Sure, nuclear weapons exist in the context of the war, but what I mean is that the alternative to protracted standoff bombing of cities into rubble is a nuclear attack (which is basically the same thing but faster). I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
- amitport 5y ago
  Would they? If US + NATO open war on Russia it may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) even if nuclear weapons are not used.

s5300 5y ago

readthenotes1 5y ago
Whoopi, is that you?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rlt 5y ago

I don’t understand all the history and nuance of the situation, but I feel incredibly guilty on behalf of the west for courting Ukraine for admission to NATO / EU, but leaving them in a very precarious and vulnerable position in the meantime. It’s just an impossible and sad situation.

alephnan 5y ago
NATO and by that we mean the United States has always been in ambiguous and uncommitted relationships with countries. Their communication is very subtle and succinct. It’s the same with Taiwan. They do not deny China’s claim to Taiwan, but that is logically not equivalent to saying they accept China’s claim to Taiwan. They use language that is convenient for the politicians of those countries to appease their constituents while maintaining the status quo and pushing the can down the road. Biden said he agreed in principle to meet if Putin has not already invaded Ukraine. That’s a weirdly structured sentence if you think about it. In plain English, the sentence seem logically equivalent to “only if”, but if we are focused on pure logic, then Biden can still meet Russia despite Russia having invaded.
- rlt 5y ago
  Is it subtle? Wikipedia says Ukraine was in the “Intensified Dialog” phase which apparently means they are engaged in ‘discussion of a "full range of political, military, financial and security issues relating to possible NATO membership“‘ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensified_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensif...
  - alephnan 5y ago
    So is it bureaucracy holdup or a matter of negotiations?
    - dgellow 5y ago
      Negotiations, but mostly one sided. Country bordering Russia such as Ukraine have been invaded in the past during USSR time and are in fear of being invaded again (for good reasons as we all know now). They want to be part of an alliance like NATO to protect themselves, thus start the negotiation process. But NATO is aware that would be seen by Russia as a red-line to not cross, Putin has been more than clear on this topic for a while, threatening to use nukes multiple time during the last 15years or so. Because of this NATO communicated quite clearly that Ukraine won’t be able to join any time soon, which means never, but keeps negotiations open.

usrme 5y ago

I really wish Putin would give a long and hard think over the letter[1] that Nikita Khrushchev sent to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. An excerpt: "If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, *we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied*. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose." --- [1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html

alkonaut 5y ago
The difference back then appears to be that while there were different philosophies (e.g.capitalist vs socialist) neither saw the existence of the other as an existential threat other than through war. Putin (And perhaps more Dugin or other Orthodox "influencers") now seem to think that the mere existence of a liberal ukraine (say, Gay parades in Kyiev) is an existential threat, regardless of whether it would ever spread to Russia proper. That changes the balance between a "them" and "us". To Putin this means there can be no status Quo. The russian Empire can't be humiliated by having a liberal /"westernized" part that also happens to be a historical cradle of Russian culture. If the premise of Russia(n leadership) is that it's better that there is no world at all than a world where Russia isn't an traditionalist empire including Ukraine, then the situation is MUCH harder to defuse than anything during the Cold War.

gorgoiler 5y ago

As a more naive armchair strategist, I used to think wars were about the best weapons and tactics. The old saying is that real generals think about logistics, not tactics. The implication is that it is logistics for their troops that is the concern. Now I see that the true strategic advantage for a nation under attack is not only to have a fighting force that is dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attribution, but to also have a population that are dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attrition. Every man is given a rifle and a helmet. Moreover, every citizen is given a water sanitizer, energy dense food, and a shelter.

yyyk 5y ago

That's the Syria playbook - which was quietly supported by the US/Europe. Our sins come back at us.

simon_000666 5y ago

I’m surprised there is no technical solution to shell-ing. Some kind of autonomous anti-shell gun that shoots them down mid flight? It seems like a fairly common problem.

misja111 5y ago
You mean something like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS or the Iron Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome An Iron Dome was actually ordered by Ukraine but Israel blocked the transaction.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  I hate their position right now... shows how unreliable partner to west they are when real SHTF
  - stephen999 5y ago
    This will only work for a very unbalanced exchange though where the attacker has way fewer resources. The cost of an iron dome intercept will be far higher than that of an artillery shell. In an exchange of equally resourced opponents the attacker will quickly overwhelm the defense capabilities.
wiseowise 5y ago
Phalanx?
ketralnis 5y ago
The "solution" is controlling the airspace so you can easily shoot back
Bancakes 5y ago
Tanks have active protection systems. Practically they are little grenade launchers that trace and obliterate the oncoming projectile.

irrational 5y ago

And then what? He is expecting that Europe and the USA will just lift the sanctions afterwards?

alephnan 5y ago
And then what? Is Europe and the USA expecting that he will just stop the invasion afterwards?

jl6 5y ago

I can’t understand how Putin would be able to pay for the reconstruction costs of the immense damage he’s causing, leading me to assume he intends to dismember the country, take the southern and eastern parts that he wants, and hand the ruin over to the west for us to foot the bill.

oblio 5y ago
The most valuable thing in a country are people. South Korea was poorer than North Korea in 1950. I'm willing to bet $100 that if Russia only takes some regions from Ukraine and does not touch the rest in any way, by 2050 the remaining parts of Ukraine will be at least 2x as prosperous as the parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia and probably also at least 2x as prosperous as Russia itself.
disambiguation 5y ago
this is my take as well.

hughrr 5y ago

Even if he succeeds in that, what is the end game? You now have an immutable hard border on one side of your country, are knee deep in sanctions which will not evaporate and another giant nation ready to take advantage of your poor position on the other side because they’re the only people who will even touch you with a 20 foot long stick. On top of that you have to now commit resources to permanently securing a whole another country which doesn’t want you in it and is being supplied with superior weapons from just about everyone else on the planet. Putin just sold the whole nation into poverty, slavery and decay. This is what we generally call a galactic scale fuck up.

disambiguation 5y ago
This is recency bias. We imposed sanctions after the invasion of Crimea too, those eventually went away. In time these will too. I don't expect the West to be so well behaved that it can go on very long without cheap oil and gas.
- EastSmith 5y ago
  Current sanctions are orders of magnitude larger. From last hour: "Credit rating agency Fitch states that Russian default on debt is "imminent”.

zpeti 5y ago

It makes sense why Zelensky is desperately asking for fighter jets. As long as Russia doesn’t control the skies it will be difficult to bomb Kiev into submission. I hope the poles manage to get some jets to them.

dogma1138 5y ago
Russia has moved S400 into the theater already 30 jets won’t be enough. It’s also not clear where they would be able to operate form since most airfields have been destroyed or damaged with long range missiles. It would delay the inevitable at most.
- chinathrow 5y ago
  > It would delay the inevitable at most. It would also send a signal that it's far from over.

cf141q5325 5y ago

Well yes. Artillery bombardment is THE Russian military doctrine. Any uncertainty on the headline would mean assuming Russia had developed some unusual qualms on the subject. And why would they? It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast >According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. However the government in Kiev sharply rejects the demand for neutral status. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-gespraeche-103.html https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-ge... There is an actual war. Russia wants something that the Ukrainian government sharply rejects. They are in range of multiple cities and gave evacuation notices days ago. What do you think will happen next? Why wouldnt the next step be Grozny? Because the western public is outraged and appalled? Because those things dont happen in todays day and age? There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach. If Ukraine continues to resist the very likely result is that it will burn. Feelings and stories dont change any of that. Russian artillery will likely turn house after house, street after street and city after city into rubble. Not some individual shelters, not some tv stations. Everything.

MrRiddle 5y ago
Exactly, on /r/europe I suggested exactly this would happen and how Ukrainian government should sign the deal while they still have some leverage left. I got banned from it for life because of it.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Its a stupid suggestion to put it mildly, pardon my french. There is no deal to be signed. Unless you mean complete Ukrainian surrender, being dragged into being another Russian slave like Chechnya or Belarus. Putin doesn't accept anything less. Russia is now yet another horrible dictatorship, no reason to believe Ukraine would fare any better, in fact most probably much, much worse due to resistance to this invasion. By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value. This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.

readonthegoapp 5y ago

Trump's presidency probably killed us all, but, that said, he would most likely not have gotten us into this particular war. As for headlines like this one, what's the basis? And the rest of the article doesn't mention Falluja. wts? oh, i forgot...Kyiv is a _civilized_ city.

alkonaut 5y ago

The problem with the "if I can't conquer it, I'll just level it" offense, is that there is very little defense. Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties. The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.

HellDunkel 5y ago
If we had set up the nofly zone beforehand that would have been a welcome invitation for putin. Now that he has broken every international law these playbook rules are meaningless.
- chinathrow 5y ago
  > If we had set up the nofly zone beforehand that would have been a welcome invitation for putin. He did not need an invitation, after all, right?
  - HellDunkel 5y ago
    Obviously he did not need an invitation to make a gigantic mistake. This mistake would have been ours as well.
sofixa 5y ago
> Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties. Even a destroyed city can fight on - Stalingrad is a great example of that.