6 ms·

Hmmmm… I think people are overlooking the fact that Putin is willing to simply lay siege and use artillery to shell the Ukrainians into submission.

pm90 5y ago
Not really. Artillery needs to be constantly resupplied. UA has been pretty great at disrupting those lines, and there are pretty good indicators that the Russian military is simply not logistically prepared to execute on such a long term operation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Someone clued me in to the magnitude of the problem recently -- a former fire control sergeant in the Israeli army. He told me that a whole flatbed truck can only resupply one or two MLRSes. And apparently logistics is the big weakness of the Russian military, so this is apparently a big problem for them.
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
  It’s not only logistics it’s also maintenance and medical assistance. While rudimentary maintenance can be done in the field providing medical assistance is a lot harder especially in a -20 Celsius cold snap and if you can’t supply it the moral of your fighting force goes even lower because they know what’s coming for them.
readthenotes1 5y ago
What do you think he's been trying to do since the war started? Play footsie?
crooked-v 5y ago
Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. In purely military terms, doing that would be almost the same as just having all that artillery sit around and do nothing while the Ukrainians execute major counter-offenses.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless? More bombs were dropped in Vietnam. Pointless was your word but to address the GP, how effective was that militarily? Stationed artillery is not an occupation.
    - melling 5y ago
      To answer his question and not provide a meaningless comparison, YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. Now, if someone wants to digress into Vietnam…
      - heavenlyblue 5y ago
        > YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. How exactly?
        Timshel 5y ago
        Some strategic ones at least appear to have ben effective: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II Not do much for area bombing (cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_Wor...). In both case we are talking of multiple years of bombing.
        heavenlyblue 5y ago
        So not all of them were effective, and the second link specifically mentions bombings of Dresden and Hamburg as controversial. And it’s very easy to be effective at bombing oil installations as they are not a part of the city.
khyryk 5y ago
1. This was done every single day and night of the war. 2. Rubble still makes for surprisingly good cover in urban combat.
- melling 5y ago
  No, the convoy near Kyiv was only recently deployed. The artillery can strike from 18-20 miles away. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/satellite-images-show-russian-convoy-outside-kyiv-largely-dispersed-artillery-in-firing-position https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/satellite-images-sho...
nomilk 5y ago
It's the horrible thought we don't want to think but it's a possibility. Question for military analysts: what is the counter to siege / artillery barrage? Guesses: 1. dig deep bunkers to survive the weeks/months of artillery, 2. organise ambushes on the artillery (taking out a few pieces per day will add up over months), or 3. use flying forces (e.g. Bayraktar TB2). Would these counters work; are they likely to occur? Another idea is taking out the transports that resupply artillery ammo, but if they're coming from the North that probably won't work, since it's close and well protected.
- bladegash 5y ago
  Think the biggest issue with the more offensive actions they could take is that it’s very difficult to make troop movements or position your personnel when they are pinned down with artillery. From my view, their best options right now are to 1) minimize the number of directions/locations which they have to defend, 2) shelter and minimize losses during air raids/artillery strikes, 3) blow every single strike they make out of proportion to gain sympathy of Western partners and even Russian citizens. I’d even go so far as to start staging fabricated atrocities - the world has a short attention span and international pressure helps their cause). 4) employ unconventional warfare, including coordinated psychological operations directed towards Russian citizens and military members/their families (e.g., their mothers). These are all things I’m pretty sure they’re doing right now and is part of their strategy. Authoritarian governments have some positives, but central decision making is also a glaringly vulnerability. The same person who can decide to start a war, is the same person who can be the target of an entire war effort to try and persuade them to stop the war. Let’s just say, we probably don’t even hear about/know half of what is going on behind the scenes/clandestinely to sabotage Russia’s potential for success right now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 5y ago
smitty1e 5y ago
To what effect? So that Ukraine can join Vietnam and Afghanistan and form a "Do Not Do This" triefecta for military history? If this were the only concern, should we just tacitly support Ukraine until Russia implodes? There are nuclear weapons rattling around in there. Politics is all about managing uncertainties. I should think a calmer, less dictatorial outcome would be everyone's interests. Or is it? Because Ukraine/Russia, while tragic for those involved, is hors d'oeuvres for the real discussion: Taiwan. Anyone paying much attention these last years knows what's going down as soon as the Ukraine situation is escalated to a full-on regional conflict. May Fortune lay peace and wisdom upon the heads of all the leaders involved.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  If anything, this has made me doubt that Taiwan's eventual takeover will be via a hot war. The country is smaller, but its military is actually slightly larger than Ukraine's was, and they have better technology than the Ukrainians did. And the Chinese would need to cross 180km of water to get there. And the only point of taking over Taiwan is for what's already there -- the people, the technology. Shelling it would be counterproductive to say the least. I would imagine some sort of interdiction/economic approach would be much more efficient for China. Or just wait until an amenable political group takes power on the island and reintegrate at that point.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Everyone fights the last war. An attack on Taiwan would be nothing like Ukraine, and if it happens, everyone will readjust their expectations for the next war - and be surprised again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tarsinge 5y ago
  Excuse my candor but isn’t the status of Taiwan way more contentious than Ukraine? Honestly I’m not the sure the claim is illegitimate enough to stop China (at least that’s what I get after just reading Wikipedia), so while unfortunate for Taiwan at least I hope public opinion in other countries might not want a war, given it’s not even recognized by a lot of countries. The strategic importance it has for the US (and Europe?) is problematic obviously though.
dane-pgp 5y ago
Even if millions of civilians flee or die, Putin still has to maintain an expensive occupation force (with its stretched supply lines) while the Ukrainians fight on as an insurgency amidst the rubble of their cities. The question is, once the war becomes too expensive for Putin, will Ukraine be in a position to take back Crimea and Donbas, and will the EU send peace-keepers to help protect Ukraine's borders like it has in Bosnia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Althea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Althea
epistasis 5y ago
Artillery are far less of a concern now than chemical weapons. Russia is laying the groundwork to say that Ukraine is using chemical weapons on its own people, which means that in actuality Russia will be using them and blaming Ukraine of a false flag attack: https://www.economist.com/news/2022/03/11/could-russia-use-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine https://www.economist.com/news/2022/03/11/could-russia-use-c...
notacoward 5y ago
How long before some of those artillery pieces are captured and turned on their erstwhile comrades? The Ukrainians have already been quite successful capturing Russian equipment, and the more they seize the easier it becomes to seize more. Putting more equipment into the theater without adequate personnel and logistical support (which the Russians don't seem to have) won't help at all militarily, and indiscriminate bombardment will only worsen their diplomatic/economic situation. That's why Putin has refrained so far - not some imaginary respect for human life or humanitarian norms that he simply doesn't have.
Exmoor 5y ago
You would hope that the Russians, more than anyone, would realize how much resistance a city under siege can put up given that their most lauded military accomplishment is being on the opposite end of that equation in Stalingrad.
tomjen3 5y ago
Putin is a bully and needs to be treated as such. We should have established that no fly zone long ago. Russia only understands strength. We should make it clear that we are stronger, don’t even consider his point and he will back down. This is hacker news. You have all dealt with bullies. Have they ever backed down, except after being physically hit?
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > This is hacker news This is a cheerleading blog for tech startups, run by a VC firm. This audience has more experience with elevator pitches than bullies and geopolitics.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
40M citizens using NATO weapons > 140M citizens using Russian weapons...

pm90 5y ago

Not really. Artillery needs to be constantly resupplied. UA has been pretty great at disrupting those lines, and there are pretty good indicators that the Russian military is simply not logistically prepared to execute on such a long term operation.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Someone clued me in to the magnitude of the problem recently -- a former fire control sergeant in the Israeli army. He told me that a whole flatbed truck can only resupply one or two MLRSes. And apparently logistics is the big weakness of the Russian military, so this is apparently a big problem for them.
throwmeariver1 5y ago
It’s not only logistics it’s also maintenance and medical assistance. While rudimentary maintenance can be done in the field providing medical assistance is a lot harder especially in a -20 Celsius cold snap and if you can’t supply it the moral of your fighting force goes even lower because they know what’s coming for them.

readthenotes1 5y ago

What do you think he's been trying to do since the war started? Play footsie?

crooked-v 5y ago

Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. In purely military terms, doing that would be almost the same as just having all that artillery sit around and do nothing while the Ukrainians execute major counter-offenses.

gruez 5y ago
>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?
- magicalist 5y ago
  > So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless? More bombs were dropped in Vietnam. Pointless was your word but to address the GP, how effective was that militarily? Stationed artillery is not an occupation.
  - melling 5y ago
    To answer his question and not provide a meaningless comparison, YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. Now, if someone wants to digress into Vietnam…
    - heavenlyblue 5y ago
      > YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. How exactly?
      - Timshel 5y ago
        Some strategic ones at least appear to have ben effective: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II Not do much for area bombing (cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_Wor...). In both case we are talking of multiple years of bombing.
        heavenlyblue 5y ago
        So not all of them were effective, and the second link specifically mentions bombings of Dresden and Hamburg as controversial. And it’s very easy to be effective at bombing oil installations as they are not a part of the city.

khyryk 5y ago

1. This was done every single day and night of the war. 2. Rubble still makes for surprisingly good cover in urban combat.

melling 5y ago
No, the convoy near Kyiv was only recently deployed. The artillery can strike from 18-20 miles away. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/satellite-images-show-russian-convoy-outside-kyiv-largely-dispersed-artillery-in-firing-position https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/satellite-images-sho...

nomilk 5y ago

It's the horrible thought we don't want to think but it's a possibility. Question for military analysts: what is the counter to siege / artillery barrage? Guesses: 1. dig deep bunkers to survive the weeks/months of artillery, 2. organise ambushes on the artillery (taking out a few pieces per day will add up over months), or 3. use flying forces (e.g. Bayraktar TB2). Would these counters work; are they likely to occur? Another idea is taking out the transports that resupply artillery ammo, but if they're coming from the North that probably won't work, since it's close and well protected.

bladegash 5y ago
Think the biggest issue with the more offensive actions they could take is that it’s very difficult to make troop movements or position your personnel when they are pinned down with artillery. From my view, their best options right now are to 1) minimize the number of directions/locations which they have to defend, 2) shelter and minimize losses during air raids/artillery strikes, 3) blow every single strike they make out of proportion to gain sympathy of Western partners and even Russian citizens. I’d even go so far as to start staging fabricated atrocities - the world has a short attention span and international pressure helps their cause). 4) employ unconventional warfare, including coordinated psychological operations directed towards Russian citizens and military members/their families (e.g., their mothers). These are all things I’m pretty sure they’re doing right now and is part of their strategy. Authoritarian governments have some positives, but central decision making is also a glaringly vulnerability. The same person who can decide to start a war, is the same person who can be the target of an entire war effort to try and persuade them to stop the war. Let’s just say, we probably don’t even hear about/know half of what is going on behind the scenes/clandestinely to sabotage Russia’s potential for success right now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago

smitty1e 5y ago

To what effect? So that Ukraine can join Vietnam and Afghanistan and form a "Do Not Do This" triefecta for military history? If this were the only concern, should we just tacitly support Ukraine until Russia implodes? There are nuclear weapons rattling around in there. Politics is all about managing uncertainties. I should think a calmer, less dictatorial outcome would be everyone's interests. Or is it? Because Ukraine/Russia, while tragic for those involved, is hors d'oeuvres for the real discussion: Taiwan. Anyone paying much attention these last years knows what's going down as soon as the Ukraine situation is escalated to a full-on regional conflict. May Fortune lay peace and wisdom upon the heads of all the leaders involved.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
If anything, this has made me doubt that Taiwan's eventual takeover will be via a hot war. The country is smaller, but its military is actually slightly larger than Ukraine's was, and they have better technology than the Ukrainians did. And the Chinese would need to cross 180km of water to get there. And the only point of taking over Taiwan is for what's already there -- the people, the technology. Shelling it would be counterproductive to say the least. I would imagine some sort of interdiction/economic approach would be much more efficient for China. Or just wait until an amenable political group takes power on the island and reintegrate at that point.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Everyone fights the last war. An attack on Taiwan would be nothing like Ukraine, and if it happens, everyone will readjust their expectations for the next war - and be surprised again.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tarsinge 5y ago
Excuse my candor but isn’t the status of Taiwan way more contentious than Ukraine? Honestly I’m not the sure the claim is illegitimate enough to stop China (at least that’s what I get after just reading Wikipedia), so while unfortunate for Taiwan at least I hope public opinion in other countries might not want a war, given it’s not even recognized by a lot of countries. The strategic importance it has for the US (and Europe?) is problematic obviously though.

dane-pgp 5y ago

Even if millions of civilians flee or die, Putin still has to maintain an expensive occupation force (with its stretched supply lines) while the Ukrainians fight on as an insurgency amidst the rubble of their cities. The question is, once the war becomes too expensive for Putin, will Ukraine be in a position to take back Crimea and Donbas, and will the EU send peace-keepers to help protect Ukraine's borders like it has in Bosnia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Althea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Althea

epistasis 5y ago

Artillery are far less of a concern now than chemical weapons. Russia is laying the groundwork to say that Ukraine is using chemical weapons on its own people, which means that in actuality Russia will be using them and blaming Ukraine of a false flag attack: https://www.economist.com/news/2022/03/11/could-russia-use-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine https://www.economist.com/news/2022/03/11/could-russia-use-c...

notacoward 5y ago

How long before some of those artillery pieces are captured and turned on their erstwhile comrades? The Ukrainians have already been quite successful capturing Russian equipment, and the more they seize the easier it becomes to seize more. Putting more equipment into the theater without adequate personnel and logistical support (which the Russians don't seem to have) won't help at all militarily, and indiscriminate bombardment will only worsen their diplomatic/economic situation. That's why Putin has refrained so far - not some imaginary respect for human life or humanitarian norms that he simply doesn't have.

Exmoor 5y ago

You would hope that the Russians, more than anyone, would realize how much resistance a city under siege can put up given that their most lauded military accomplishment is being on the opposite end of that equation in Stalingrad.

tomjen3 5y ago

Putin is a bully and needs to be treated as such. We should have established that no fly zone long ago. Russia only understands strength. We should make it clear that we are stronger, don’t even consider his point and he will back down. This is hacker news. You have all dealt with bullies. Have they ever backed down, except after being physically hit?

spacemanmatt 5y ago
> This is hacker news This is a cheerleading blog for tech startups, run by a VC firm. This audience has more experience with elevator pitches than bullies and geopolitics.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

40M citizens using NATO weapons > 140M citizens using Russian weapons...