11 ms·

Another counterview has emerged from Meduza, the press group which was 'blocked' in Russia as part of their silencing drive. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/

Another counterview has emerged from Meduza, the press group which was 'blocked' in Russia as part of their silencing drive. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/12/has-russia-s-invasion-stalled https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/12/has-russia-s-invasio... Apparently, according to Meduza we are only seeing the bright side of things - the news we want to hear. The battlefront has several other shock surprises if you look at the Ukrainian losses. It seems bleeding heavily on both sides unfortunately.

draw_down 5y ago
ch4s3 5y ago
Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. What I think people are correctly surprised by is how well the Ukrainians are utilizing NATO training an arms, and how badly the Russians are performing.
- frozencell 5y ago
  We don’t have a cryptographic proof on each statistics both sides news give us.
  - pavlov 5y ago
    How would that even work? Do you expect dying soldiers to bravely sign "I am dead" blockchain transactions with their private keys?
    - prepend 5y ago
      Sadly, there’s no money in speculating on proof of life, real-time blockchains. I remember in the 90s when we were thinking about notification schemes to prove we were still alive and would post daily keepalive posts to show we were still alive. That wasn’t much fun so we didn’t keep doing it for long.
    - frozencell 5y ago
      Electrocardiography (ECG or EKG). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor
      - pavlov 5y ago
        And how do you verify the data? I know you were probably joking, but this is such a common pattern in proposed crypto use cases: 1) Collect some data 2) ?? 3) The blockchain has magically ensured the data is true! Whether it's supply chains or property records or war casualties, crypto does absolutely nothing to prevent people from lying.
        frozencell 5y ago
        Public national crypto identity ledger. Soldiers cannot fake signatures between the ECG or a body implant and the government chain. For most of the casualties, it can provide truth more trustful than government news. How could government or soldiers lie here?
        srvmshr 5y ago
        frozencell, just stop it already man. You are making terribly outlandish & insensitive suggestions. Period. This is a real war. People are getting bombed. No one has the time for monitoring EKG bands. Evacuation is looking bad already. This is not a video game where you monitor player's health stats. Instead of apologizing you are simply doubling down on your crazy remarks.
        frozencell 5y ago
        Let unzoom and think of wars in general, how could 3D vision helmets synchronise with ECG to have physical-first proofs of damage? By the way, this thread is not developed for emotional or entertainment but technology purpose, they are NGOs to refer to fortunately for the first; and only NGO online security is not really off-topic here. [0] https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and-development/ukraine https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and...
  - nsriv 5y ago
    I know this is going to be a violation of the rules, but this is truly one of the most divorced-from-reality, stunningly dumb things I've ever read.
  - srvmshr 5y ago
    I have never cussed reading views on HN. That is a more Reddit phenomena & this parent comment belongs there. Makes me wonder how insensitive one has to be to make a terribly casual dismissal of the current calamity & dangers to thousands of Ukrainians. Some people have a reserved section in hell for belittling or condescending human suffering.
    - frozencell 5y ago
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. While that is truly horrible, it does not affect victory. Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. (Anyone fighting or their homes can - look at the damage taken by Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. in WWII - Japan suffered two nuclear bombs and still didn't surrender until they thought Russia might invade.) Look at US wars against insurgencies in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq: The attrition was enormously one-sided, and it didn't make a difference. You can't win a war of attrition against an insurgency, afaik, unless you essentially kill everyone (and even Putin won't do that). It was expected that Ukraine would be reduced to an insurgency within a few days. The fact that they are still fighting military-to-military and with significant success is an enormous bonus. In the end, they may have to fight as an insurgency but the cost to Russia is expected to be much too high.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    > Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. That’s more or less what I’m saying here.
jonahbenton 5y ago
Upvote. Outstanding piece, unique collection of observations of an extremely complicated landscape.
dimitar 5y ago
All this talk about encircling Ukrainian forces and taking ground would have made sense if the Russians had additional echelons to continue the rapid advance while the first one sieges. Without a second and third echelon the first one will simply have larger and more vulnerable flanks if they encircle cities. But they have only one echelon which didn't get any objectives. Given the bad logistics and attrition it needs to take the cities or the war is lost. And even if they take the cities the subsequent insurgency can still kick them out of the country. Putin simply did not bring enough troops, hoping that either Ukraine would collapse or that the expensive weaponry (cruise missiles, jets, attack helicopters, modernized tanks) would be much more effective than it is. Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries, but they have brought about parity, with Ukraine rapidly getting more volunteers and Western gear in the defensible cities.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries I've read 5:1 or 10:1 as general military theory.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chongli 5y ago
Everything I’m hearing about Mariupol is the opposite of what I want to hear. It’s an absolute disaster that’s ratcheting up day-by-day. The Russian army is using modern artillery to conduct medieval siege warfare. They’re deliberately starving the whole population to death and the city (like most cities today) had zero preparations to deal with a siege. We’ve got to find some way to get these people supplies!
- CyanBird 5y ago
  - cmurf 5y ago
    There is one solution to the death problem, Russia ends their war of aggression, a war of choice, and a war of conquest to illegally expand their borders. Illegal because they are parties to agreements saying it is, which they've reneged on. Surrender is a likely false hope for survival. Given Putin started a war with multiple agreements in place saying Russia wouldn't, why trust any future agreements they're a party to?
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    That is the goal of the Russians, and their argument. It's OK for Russia! Not so much for Ukrainians.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  I don't understand why people are calling these tactics "medieval". The same tactics were also widely used in XX century, e.g. in siege of Leningrad, during the pacification of Warsaw Uprising or in Jugoslavia war in 1990s. They're part of the "total war" package that is and always was on the table for leaders determined to win at all costs (or are just seeking revenge - let's not forget that the Alies burned hundreds of thousands of civilians to death during bombings near the end of WWII).
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    Because apparently modern US warfare doctrine and smarter guided weapons causes less civilian casualties.
caycep 5y ago
I think this goes along with the prevailing view - that Ukraine would take heavy losses as a given. I think no one expected Russia to do the same. But now, it seems headed towards old school Red Army style meatgrinder warfare, sadly...to the vast detriment of everyone involved.
mardifoufs 5y ago
Yes this exactly. I think just looking at a map of ukraine is enough to see that while we are showered by ukrainian success stories to the point where you'd think russia is completely stalled in their invasion... the reality is quite different. Here's a good updated live map with a frontline overlay: https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194 https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/09... Keep in mind the war started 3 weeks ago. The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's just all reminiscent of the Armenia-Azerbaïdjan war in 2020 in terms of "false social media driven hopes". If we want to help the ukrainians, downplaying the russian threat is like the total opposite of what we need.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Russia itself and military experts around the world expected a Russian victory within a few days. Ukraine of course isn't doing well in absolute terms - they'd be much better off if like the rest of the world they weren't being attacked! But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds. Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless. > The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Is that really true?
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military. I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot. Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.
acjohnson55 5y ago
I find that unsurprising. I don't think anyone is imagining that the Ukrainians are going to repulse the Russians. The Russians will make inexorable progress of taking territory and destroying or expelling Ukrainian battlefield units. But it seems pretty unlikely to me that they'll be able to fully pacify even the Eastern half of the country. And the question is how long can they keep their warfare up as the sanctions cripple the Russian economy and ability to supply their military. I don't think Ukraine is going to settle for anything that leaves them unprotected. Maybe they'll exchange eastern and coastal land for the ability to join NATO and the EU.

draw_down 5y ago

ch4s3 5y ago

Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. What I think people are correctly surprised by is how well the Ukrainians are utilizing NATO training an arms, and how badly the Russians are performing.

frozencell 5y ago
We don’t have a cryptographic proof on each statistics both sides news give us.
- pavlov 5y ago
  How would that even work? Do you expect dying soldiers to bravely sign "I am dead" blockchain transactions with their private keys?
  - prepend 5y ago
    Sadly, there’s no money in speculating on proof of life, real-time blockchains. I remember in the 90s when we were thinking about notification schemes to prove we were still alive and would post daily keepalive posts to show we were still alive. That wasn’t much fun so we didn’t keep doing it for long.
  - frozencell 5y ago
    Electrocardiography (ECG or EKG). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor
    - pavlov 5y ago
      And how do you verify the data? I know you were probably joking, but this is such a common pattern in proposed crypto use cases: 1) Collect some data 2) ?? 3) The blockchain has magically ensured the data is true! Whether it's supply chains or property records or war casualties, crypto does absolutely nothing to prevent people from lying.
      - frozencell 5y ago
        Public national crypto identity ledger. Soldiers cannot fake signatures between the ECG or a body implant and the government chain. For most of the casualties, it can provide truth more trustful than government news. How could government or soldiers lie here?
        srvmshr 5y ago
        frozencell, just stop it already man. You are making terribly outlandish & insensitive suggestions. Period. This is a real war. People are getting bombed. No one has the time for monitoring EKG bands. Evacuation is looking bad already. This is not a video game where you monitor player's health stats. Instead of apologizing you are simply doubling down on your crazy remarks.
        frozencell 5y ago
        Let unzoom and think of wars in general, how could 3D vision helmets synchronise with ECG to have physical-first proofs of damage? By the way, this thread is not developed for emotional or entertainment but technology purpose, they are NGOs to refer to fortunately for the first; and only NGO online security is not really off-topic here. [0] https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and-development/ukraine https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and...
- nsriv 5y ago
  I know this is going to be a violation of the rules, but this is truly one of the most divorced-from-reality, stunningly dumb things I've ever read.
- srvmshr 5y ago
  I have never cussed reading views on HN. That is a more Reddit phenomena & this parent comment belongs there. Makes me wonder how insensitive one has to be to make a terribly casual dismissal of the current calamity & dangers to thousands of Ukrainians. Some people have a reserved section in hell for belittling or condescending human suffering.
  - frozencell 5y ago
wolverine876 5y ago
> Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. While that is truly horrible, it does not affect victory. Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. (Anyone fighting or their homes can - look at the damage taken by Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. in WWII - Japan suffered two nuclear bombs and still didn't surrender until they thought Russia might invade.) Look at US wars against insurgencies in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq: The attrition was enormously one-sided, and it didn't make a difference. You can't win a war of attrition against an insurgency, afaik, unless you essentially kill everyone (and even Putin won't do that). It was expected that Ukraine would be reduced to an insurgency within a few days. The fact that they are still fighting military-to-military and with significant success is an enormous bonus. In the end, they may have to fight as an insurgency but the cost to Russia is expected to be much too high.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  > Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. That’s more or less what I’m saying here.

jonahbenton 5y ago

Upvote. Outstanding piece, unique collection of observations of an extremely complicated landscape.

dimitar 5y ago

All this talk about encircling Ukrainian forces and taking ground would have made sense if the Russians had additional echelons to continue the rapid advance while the first one sieges. Without a second and third echelon the first one will simply have larger and more vulnerable flanks if they encircle cities. But they have only one echelon which didn't get any objectives. Given the bad logistics and attrition it needs to take the cities or the war is lost. And even if they take the cities the subsequent insurgency can still kick them out of the country. Putin simply did not bring enough troops, hoping that either Ukraine would collapse or that the expensive weaponry (cruise missiles, jets, attack helicopters, modernized tanks) would be much more effective than it is. Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries, but they have brought about parity, with Ukraine rapidly getting more volunteers and Western gear in the defensible cities.

wolverine876 5y ago
> Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries I've read 5:1 or 10:1 as general military theory.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chongli 5y ago

Everything I’m hearing about Mariupol is the opposite of what I want to hear. It’s an absolute disaster that’s ratcheting up day-by-day. The Russian army is using modern artillery to conduct medieval siege warfare. They’re deliberately starving the whole population to death and the city (like most cities today) had zero preparations to deal with a siege. We’ve got to find some way to get these people supplies!

CyanBird 5y ago
- cmurf 5y ago
  There is one solution to the death problem, Russia ends their war of aggression, a war of choice, and a war of conquest to illegally expand their borders. Illegal because they are parties to agreements saying it is, which they've reneged on. Surrender is a likely false hope for survival. Given Putin started a war with multiple agreements in place saying Russia wouldn't, why trust any future agreements they're a party to?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  That is the goal of the Russians, and their argument. It's OK for Russia! Not so much for Ukrainians.
burntoutfire 5y ago
I don't understand why people are calling these tactics "medieval". The same tactics were also widely used in XX century, e.g. in siege of Leningrad, during the pacification of Warsaw Uprising or in Jugoslavia war in 1990s. They're part of the "total war" package that is and always was on the table for leaders determined to win at all costs (or are just seeking revenge - let's not forget that the Alies burned hundreds of thousands of civilians to death during bombings near the end of WWII).
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Because apparently modern US warfare doctrine and smarter guided weapons causes less civilian casualties.

caycep 5y ago

I think this goes along with the prevailing view - that Ukraine would take heavy losses as a given. I think no one expected Russia to do the same. But now, it seems headed towards old school Red Army style meatgrinder warfare, sadly...to the vast detriment of everyone involved.

mardifoufs 5y ago

Yes this exactly. I think just looking at a map of ukraine is enough to see that while we are showered by ukrainian success stories to the point where you'd think russia is completely stalled in their invasion... the reality is quite different. Here's a good updated live map with a frontline overlay: https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194 https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/09... Keep in mind the war started 3 weeks ago. The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's just all reminiscent of the Armenia-Azerbaïdjan war in 2020 in terms of "false social media driven hopes". If we want to help the ukrainians, downplaying the russian threat is like the total opposite of what we need.

wolverine876 5y ago
Russia itself and military experts around the world expected a Russian victory within a few days. Ukraine of course isn't doing well in absolute terms - they'd be much better off if like the rest of the world they weren't being attacked! But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds. Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless. > The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Is that really true?
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military. I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot. Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.

acjohnson55 5y ago

I find that unsurprising. I don't think anyone is imagining that the Ukrainians are going to repulse the Russians. The Russians will make inexorable progress of taking territory and destroying or expelling Ukrainian battlefield units. But it seems pretty unlikely to me that they'll be able to fully pacify even the Eastern half of the country. And the question is how long can they keep their warfare up as the sanctions cripple the Russian economy and ability to supply their military. I don't think Ukraine is going to settle for anything that leaves them unprotected. Maybe they'll exchange eastern and coastal land for the ability to join NATO and the EU.