7 ms·

the article reads like too much wishful thinking. I am from Ukraine originally and like most sane people I want this war to end ASAP with Russia's failure and U

by option 5y ago

the article reads like too much wishful thinking. I am from Ukraine originally and like most sane people I want this war to end ASAP with Russia's failure and Ukraine emerging stronger. But I do hope Western militaries are not counting on Russia's "incompetence and inexperience".

thematrixturtle 5y ago
I don't see much "wishful thinking" in the article? It points out a surprising fact (that Russia is not using the air power to the extent that everybody expected) and posits some possible explanations: intentionally holding back (but why?), inability to pre-emptively destroy Ukraine's air defences, lack of guided munitions, etc.
- gattilorenz 5y ago
  I haven't read this article, but a few days ago another article was explaining how Russian air tactics are different from the US ones, and how they see the air power in a war, which is something you're not considered in your explanations. The gist was that the US goes immediately for dominating the sky. Russia sees ground forces as the main engine of the army, and the Air Force only supports the advancement of ground forces near the border, without bombing far into enemy territory (which is a task for the army's missiles).
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    How do they expect their ground forces to advance when Turkish drones are allowed to circle overhead? Keeping control of the skies is not unique to US tactics...
    - gattilorenz 5y ago
      Tbh I have no idea, I'm no military expert. I could not find the source article I read, and I guess there's a non trivial chance it might even have been based on Russian propaganda... as usual, take everything with a grain of salt. I just find it hard (and reassuring) to imagine that Russia's army and air force are in such a terrible state.
      - zppln 5y ago
        No, you're right, there has been a difference in doctrine. The Russians put much more emphasis on SAMs traditionally, to enable their ground forces to operate even if they their airforce doesn't own the sky. That's why they have everything ranging fro Iglas to S-400s. They seem to have missed developing a good counter for the Bayraktars though. :)
      - rmbyrro 5y ago
        I don't find it hard to believe, but agree the safest option is to assume they're not incompetent and do our best to fight them off as if they were the best. Maybe that's what parent comment is concerned about when saying "I do hope Western militaries are not counting on Russia's 'incompetence and inexperience'"
  - sofixa 5y ago
    That wouldn't make sense though: First as a doctrine, it would be a stupid one - they tend to use paratroopers for surprise taking of advanced positions, and air support is vital to help them keep their position until reinforcements can arrive. Point in case, the failure at Hostomel. Their doctrine emphasises anti-air defenses because air superiority against a superior enemy ( NATO) isn't certain, but that doesn't mean the Air Force shouldn't be used at all, especially against an inferior enemy Second, they don't seem to be even doing that - there are small scale ( 1-2 planes) raids deep in Ukrainian territory, and neither their planes nor their SAMs can deal with the drones Ukraine fields, even over Russian held territory
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    I've read many times that the major Russian military reforms over the last decade or so - successful or not - included combined arms, including air and infantry.
atoav 5y ago
I think everybody has been surprised by just how bad Russia is doing. They have been overestimated by magnitudes, it seems. Their gear is in a much worse condition than anybody would have guessed, they have logistical problems all over the place etc. This is not a reason to relax, but one can certainly observe that.
- muro 5y ago
  They may have logistical problems, but they are also encircling/taking major cities, now with many more civilian casualties than early in the war. I would take the (sadly looks more like wishful thinking) incompetence over the current destruction.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    Incompetent armies can still do damage But yeah let's hope they keep like that
    - kergonath 5y ago
      If the point is to take a country, competent armies minimise damage. Otherwise at the end you’re just king of the ruins and have trouble extracting all the resources you came for. Mass bombings is almost the bluntest last-resort weapon you can use. A bloodless coup followed by a (probably quite bloody) purge would have been the best outcome for the Russians.
  - atoav 5y ago
    > I would take the (sadly looks more like wishful thinking) incompetence over the current destruction. You get me wrong there. The current destruction is a result of the incompetence, not an alternative to it. If they were a well organized well maintained troup going full Blitzkrieg they would have overwhelmed the Ukrainian forces so fast they already would have taken the capital more than a week ago. This is what they intended to do. Now if they can't get forward because the majority of their transport can only happen on roads they are definitely in dire need of air superiority, because air superiority would keep the convoys safer. They started shelling civilian infrastructure because they want to break the unexpected fighting spirit and they have no other ways to do it. But this was definitly not what the leading heads in Russia would have preferred, they thought they would go in full Blitzkrieg and after 3 days the capital would have fallen due to overwhelming force.
sterlind 5y ago
one hypothesis from the article is that Russia is saving its good bombs for a bigger war, which is troubling. but by doing so they're wasting planes, right? it doesn't make sense to me.
- _kbh_ 5y ago
  they are also wasting a much more precious resource than planes, pilots.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    And the most precious resource of all, the purchasing power of their own currency.
    - sprusemoose 5y ago
      energy?
      - atoav 5y ago
        I think the parent means that Russia's biggest income source is oil and gas. Now that he demonstrated to it's biggest customer (Europe) just how problematic this is, the demand is not going to go up. Other than in the US where russian Oil is like 3% of the used oil and russian gas is basically not used, in Europe no russian gas means cold houses and problems in the industry.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      That is already gone.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      Unfortunately this is being ameliorated by us paying them hand over fist for their oil and gas.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Russia borders something like sixteen different countries. They have to keep in mind all of those other avenues of potential attacks which might account for some amount of holding back.

by option 5y ago

thematrixturtle 5y ago

I don't see much "wishful thinking" in the article? It points out a surprising fact (that Russia is not using the air power to the extent that everybody expected) and posits some possible explanations: intentionally holding back (but why?), inability to pre-emptively destroy Ukraine's air defences, lack of guided munitions, etc.

gattilorenz 5y ago
I haven't read this article, but a few days ago another article was explaining how Russian air tactics are different from the US ones, and how they see the air power in a war, which is something you're not considered in your explanations. The gist was that the US goes immediately for dominating the sky. Russia sees ground forces as the main engine of the army, and the Air Force only supports the advancement of ground forces near the border, without bombing far into enemy territory (which is a task for the army's missiles).
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  How do they expect their ground forces to advance when Turkish drones are allowed to circle overhead? Keeping control of the skies is not unique to US tactics...
  - gattilorenz 5y ago
    Tbh I have no idea, I'm no military expert. I could not find the source article I read, and I guess there's a non trivial chance it might even have been based on Russian propaganda... as usual, take everything with a grain of salt. I just find it hard (and reassuring) to imagine that Russia's army and air force are in such a terrible state.
    - zppln 5y ago
      No, you're right, there has been a difference in doctrine. The Russians put much more emphasis on SAMs traditionally, to enable their ground forces to operate even if they their airforce doesn't own the sky. That's why they have everything ranging fro Iglas to S-400s. They seem to have missed developing a good counter for the Bayraktars though. :)
    - rmbyrro 5y ago
      I don't find it hard to believe, but agree the safest option is to assume they're not incompetent and do our best to fight them off as if they were the best. Maybe that's what parent comment is concerned about when saying "I do hope Western militaries are not counting on Russia's 'incompetence and inexperience'"
- sofixa 5y ago
  That wouldn't make sense though: First as a doctrine, it would be a stupid one - they tend to use paratroopers for surprise taking of advanced positions, and air support is vital to help them keep their position until reinforcements can arrive. Point in case, the failure at Hostomel. Their doctrine emphasises anti-air defenses because air superiority against a superior enemy ( NATO) isn't certain, but that doesn't mean the Air Force shouldn't be used at all, especially against an inferior enemy Second, they don't seem to be even doing that - there are small scale ( 1-2 planes) raids deep in Ukrainian territory, and neither their planes nor their SAMs can deal with the drones Ukraine fields, even over Russian held territory
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I've read many times that the major Russian military reforms over the last decade or so - successful or not - included combined arms, including air and infantry.

atoav 5y ago

I think everybody has been surprised by just how bad Russia is doing. They have been overestimated by magnitudes, it seems. Their gear is in a much worse condition than anybody would have guessed, they have logistical problems all over the place etc. This is not a reason to relax, but one can certainly observe that.

muro 5y ago
They may have logistical problems, but they are also encircling/taking major cities, now with many more civilian casualties than early in the war. I would take the (sadly looks more like wishful thinking) incompetence over the current destruction.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Incompetent armies can still do damage But yeah let's hope they keep like that
  - kergonath 5y ago
    If the point is to take a country, competent armies minimise damage. Otherwise at the end you’re just king of the ruins and have trouble extracting all the resources you came for. Mass bombings is almost the bluntest last-resort weapon you can use. A bloodless coup followed by a (probably quite bloody) purge would have been the best outcome for the Russians.
- atoav 5y ago
  > I would take the (sadly looks more like wishful thinking) incompetence over the current destruction. You get me wrong there. The current destruction is a result of the incompetence, not an alternative to it. If they were a well organized well maintained troup going full Blitzkrieg they would have overwhelmed the Ukrainian forces so fast they already would have taken the capital more than a week ago. This is what they intended to do. Now if they can't get forward because the majority of their transport can only happen on roads they are definitely in dire need of air superiority, because air superiority would keep the convoys safer. They started shelling civilian infrastructure because they want to break the unexpected fighting spirit and they have no other ways to do it. But this was definitly not what the leading heads in Russia would have preferred, they thought they would go in full Blitzkrieg and after 3 days the capital would have fallen due to overwhelming force.

sterlind 5y ago

one hypothesis from the article is that Russia is saving its good bombs for a bigger war, which is troubling. but by doing so they're wasting planes, right? it doesn't make sense to me.

_kbh_ 5y ago
they are also wasting a much more precious resource than planes, pilots.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  And the most precious resource of all, the purchasing power of their own currency.
  - sprusemoose 5y ago
    energy?
    - atoav 5y ago
      I think the parent means that Russia's biggest income source is oil and gas. Now that he demonstrated to it's biggest customer (Europe) just how problematic this is, the demand is not going to go up. Other than in the US where russian Oil is like 3% of the used oil and russian gas is basically not used, in Europe no russian gas means cold houses and problems in the industry.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    That is already gone.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    Unfortunately this is being ameliorated by us paying them hand over fist for their oil and gas.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Russia borders something like sixteen different countries. They have to keep in mind all of those other avenues of potential attacks which might account for some amount of holding back.