18 ms·

There are several main factors in my opinion: - The Ukrainian ground forces are saturated with MANPADs after 8 years of continuous pumping (to the point of unt

by fuoqi 5y ago

There are several main factors in my opinion: - The Ukrainian ground forces are saturated with MANPADs after 8 years of continuous pumping (to the point of untrained personnel getting them), which has significantly accelerated at the end of the last year. So the Russian Air Force can not operate easily on low-mid altitude far from their ground forces. - The remaining Ukrainian anti-air missile systems (like S-300, but there are also older ones) are heavily supported by NATO radar infrastructure in Poland, so it's risky for Russian planes to stay long on high altitudes. - The Kalibr missile is quite sufficient for striking stationary objects, so you don't need planes for those. It's hard to strike mobile forces, because they quickly get intelligence from NATO about planes in the area and thus able to hide in cities, thus making it hard for RAF to strike them (the Russian forces have enough firepower to level cities to the ground, but they have orders to minimize damage if possible). - Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down), so it does not make much sense to patrol the air space too much, since operating a plane is far from being cheap.

trhway 5y ago
>thus able to hide in cities, thus making it hard for RAF to strike them (the Russian forces have enough firepower to level cities to the ground, but they have orders to minimize damage if possible). that is pure Russian propaganda. Most of the videos of destroyed armor in cities is Russian armor - i.e. it is Russian armor hides in cities (yet it doesn't help them against Molotov cocktails and RPG and high-precision strikes https://youtu.be/D5WoCUqNWIs?t=13 https://youtu.be/D5WoCUqNWIs?t=13). Russian airforce and artillery indiscriminately bomb and shell Ukrainian cities using unguided bombs and unguided missiles (from "Grad" and "Smerch" systems), and among the huge amount of videos of Ukrainian cities destruction by Russians there is no videos with Ukrainian armor inside destruction - ie. Russians attack residential areas without any Ukrainian hardware there. On March 5 Ukrainians shot down such a Su-34 when it was bombing Chernigov and captured the pilot. The pilot confessed to the order of bombing the city (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkszHkNoQNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkszHkNoQNo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWrxX_gpNjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWrxX_gpNjM). That pilot has been doing similar unguided bombing of Aleppo 6 years ago (https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sbitogo-v-chernigove-samoleta-rf-doprosili-video-novosti-donbassa-11730376.html https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sb...) for which he was celebrated by Putin and Assad. Russian bombing of cities is done to force Ukrainians out. That is ethnical cleansing, a part of the announced by Putin destruction of Ukrainian ethnical and national identity. >Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down), so it does not make much sense to patrol the air space too much. that just doesn't make sense, especially given how many Russian ground hardware is being lost to drone fire and to drone guided fire.
- fuoqi 5y ago
  - baud147258 5y ago
    > artillery being stationed in school yards well, it's not the worst location, since I guess schools are closed due to the conflict and thus empty of children
  - trhway 5y ago
    > If you want to see what the Russian forces are capable of on the city-leveling front, simply watch footage from the second Chechen war and compare it with big Ukrainian cities today (preferably shot by simple people, not media outlets). Grozny wasn't destroyed in one day. It took 2 wars to achieve that. There is still less than 3 weeks of Ukrainian war, and i'd say Russian destruction speed of Ukrainian cities beats the Chechen war - not surprisingly as Russia uses much more hardware for Ukraine cities destruction. If anything looks like Russia is going at it at the maximum speed it can with the available hardware (and giving the current war failure Putin would have brought the additional hardware if he could without leaving naked the rest of the country - there is a reason he is asking China for the hardware help). >I will not comment on your blatant propaganda piece. There is enough of footage of Ukrainian armored forces hiding near high raise buildings, "territorial defenses" assembling in schools and hospitals, and artillery being stationed in school yards. Still, what Russia can't show is footage of actual strike on city civilians with a valid military target in the strike zone while there are lot of footage of Russian strikes on city civilians without a valid military target in the strike zone. Anyway, Ukrainians have got to defend their cities. By your and German Nazi logic the defenders of Stalingrad are guilty of destruction of Stalingrad.
  - actionfromafar 5y ago
    It has only been a couple of weeks yet. We will see how much will be left of Mariupol and other surrounded cities.
  - mrighele 5y ago
    > I think you significantly overestimate how many in practice the Russian forces lose to drones. Note that the parent said not only drone fire, but also "drone guided fire". With help from drones artillery can be quite effective [1]. The more limited firepower of drones is used instead for more "surgical" tasks, like targeting artillery command posts [2], or supply behind the front line (seemingly, they are small enough that they are hard to target by Russian air defense) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSJPqkzupI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSJPqkzupI [2] https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1503162011076919298 https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/150316201107691929...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sofixa 5y ago
> he Russian forces have enough firepower to level cities to the ground, but they have orders to minimize damage if possible How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? It seems to be a ridiculous assumption long debunked. > Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down), so it does not make much sense to patrol the air space too much, since operating a plane is far from being cheap Nope, Ukrainian drones continue to inflict heavy damage - either directly or indirectly with targeting, just this past day there were direct strikes on a railway bridge, command post deep in Russian held territory, and an indirect one with artillery on Russian troops in a forest. Check out Oryx the blog or twitter account, they verify posts and retract errors if any are detected. Furthermore, Ukraine still operated fighters as of what, 2-3 says ago at the latest? Russia does not have air supremacy, only local air superiority.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  > How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? It seems to be a ridiculous assumption long debunked. One way to square it is that the perception of what is "minimal" is vastly different in their minds. Mind you, they decided to attack a well armed sovereign country that was definitely not welcoming them, and they have a total control of their media, so they don't really care about achieving surgical precision. That doesn't mean they must then choose to level cities to the ground. It's not a binary choice.
- fuoqi 5y ago
  >How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? You can compare this "mass destruction" with the Grozny's state after the second Chechen war or, if you want a more recent example, with Mosul and Hudaydah.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You missed the 'after' bit in your own comment.
  - 5y ago
jacquesm 5y ago
Lots of unsourced and implausible claims here, either you are making stuff up or you are pushing an agenda. > "they have orders to minimize damage if possible" Right, at a guess you are in Russia and not in Ukraine.
- simonh 5y ago
  I don't think that's fair. The Russians could have wrecked central Kyiv by now but clearly have been ordered not to, it's largely untouched. Of course there are good reasons for that, the Kyiv skyline is an iconic part of the shared Ukrainian and Russian cultural landscape. Images of it ruined by Russian bombardment would be impossible to square with Russia's propaganda position. On the other hand, clearly any such 'minimize damage' directive is not protecting smaller Ukrainian cities and towns.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    They have leveled cities. That Kyiv is still standing is because it is well defended, not because of Russians being particularly careful with damage minimization and as you may have noticed the war isn't over yet.
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      How does “well-defended” defend against missiles? Couldn’t missile barrages already have destroyed central Kiev if Russia wanted that? (Genuine question)
      - baybal2 5y ago
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        That's mostly a cost and availability issue. Missiles tend to be used against high value targets where accuracy is more important than cost efficiency. The cruel economics of war: civilians are soft targets, so you don't need precision or the ability to penetrate very strong defenses.
belter 5y ago
It's incredible that the Ukrainians have S300. I guess some Western "private consultants" are probably analyzing them in detail;-)
- Gasp0de 5y ago
  Aren't S300 a rather old system from the 1980s? I doubt that there is anything still secret about those.
  - belter 5y ago
    S300 is just the "brand". They have been upgraded over the years and it's a whole family. Of course it all depends on what version Ukraine has. I can't believe NATO would not love to have their hands on one, even an older generation one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system Edit: It looks like Greece ( a NATO member) also has S300 ( How did that happen !!?? ) and Turkey ( also NATO member) has the S400. Not sure if Turkey would allow close examination of their S400 capabilities, even as a NATO member.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Greece, a NATO member, has operated the S-300 for over 20 years. Slovakia has them as well.
    - throwawayffffas 5y ago
      > It looks like Greece ( a NATO member) also has S300 ( How did that happen !!?? ) It was a compromise after Cyprus got them, but choose not receive them after threats from Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_S-300_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_S-300_crisis) Greece also has a number of other Russian SAM they bought after the 90s in the lull of the tensions with Russia.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      Turkey getting S-400 was the reason for them being edged out of the F-35 program, so I don’t know how it all works but it’s not all hunky dory
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dotancohen 5y ago
> quickly get intelligence from NATO about planes in the area and thus > able to hide in cities Isn't hiding among civilians a war crime?
- foverzar 5y ago
  According to current media climate, it is Russian propaganda, rather than a war crime. Jokes aside, I suppose there is some kind of exempt for defenders, unless one can prove that civilians were held as hostages.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Nope, it's total war. There are no civilians, everyone is fighting against the foreign invaders ( or should be - of course there are refugees and people who don't want to die, but they often don't have the option).
tablespoon 5y ago
> The Kalibr missile is quite sufficient for striking stationary objects, so you don't need planes for those. Perhaps, but how many of those does Russia actually have? Whenever I read reports of US Tomahawk inventory, I'm always surprised by how few they actually have in inventory (e.g. guessing they'd run out quickly in a hot war). > Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down) My understanding is that's not true. The airspace is contested, since neither Russia nor Ukraine have full control. Ukraine still has planes and they're still flying them, according to this: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/03/11/the-u-s-cant-stop-poland-from-giving-ukraine-its-migs-00016664 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily....
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  > Whenever I read reports of US Tomahawk inventory, I'm always surprised by how few they actually have in inventory (e.g. guessing they'd run out quickly in a hot war). And most of those are old. Really old in some cases. Like half got used in Iraq II and the other half are still around... Stockpiles of newer and scarier stuff is probably less known, however.
mda 5y ago
You are writing like "Pravda", please don't insult our intelligence.

by fuoqi 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>thus able to hide in cities, thus making it hard for RAF to strike them (the Russian forces have enough firepower to level cities to the ground, but they have orders to minimize damage if possible). that is pure Russian propaganda. Most of the videos of destroyed armor in cities is Russian armor - i.e. it is Russian armor hides in cities (yet it doesn't help them against Molotov cocktails and RPG and high-precision strikes https://youtu.be/D5WoCUqNWIs?t=13 https://youtu.be/D5WoCUqNWIs?t=13). Russian airforce and artillery indiscriminately bomb and shell Ukrainian cities using unguided bombs and unguided missiles (from "Grad" and "Smerch" systems), and among the huge amount of videos of Ukrainian cities destruction by Russians there is no videos with Ukrainian armor inside destruction - ie. Russians attack residential areas without any Ukrainian hardware there. On March 5 Ukrainians shot down such a Su-34 when it was bombing Chernigov and captured the pilot. The pilot confessed to the order of bombing the city (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkszHkNoQNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkszHkNoQNo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWrxX_gpNjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWrxX_gpNjM). That pilot has been doing similar unguided bombing of Aleppo 6 years ago (https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sbitogo-v-chernigove-samoleta-rf-doprosili-video-novosti-donbassa-11730376.html https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sb...) for which he was celebrated by Putin and Assad. Russian bombing of cities is done to force Ukrainians out. That is ethnical cleansing, a part of the announced by Putin destruction of Ukrainian ethnical and national identity. >Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down), so it does not make much sense to patrol the air space too much. that just doesn't make sense, especially given how many Russian ground hardware is being lost to drone fire and to drone guided fire.

fuoqi 5y ago
- baud147258 5y ago
  > artillery being stationed in school yards well, it's not the worst location, since I guess schools are closed due to the conflict and thus empty of children
- trhway 5y ago
  > If you want to see what the Russian forces are capable of on the city-leveling front, simply watch footage from the second Chechen war and compare it with big Ukrainian cities today (preferably shot by simple people, not media outlets). Grozny wasn't destroyed in one day. It took 2 wars to achieve that. There is still less than 3 weeks of Ukrainian war, and i'd say Russian destruction speed of Ukrainian cities beats the Chechen war - not surprisingly as Russia uses much more hardware for Ukraine cities destruction. If anything looks like Russia is going at it at the maximum speed it can with the available hardware (and giving the current war failure Putin would have brought the additional hardware if he could without leaving naked the rest of the country - there is a reason he is asking China for the hardware help). >I will not comment on your blatant propaganda piece. There is enough of footage of Ukrainian armored forces hiding near high raise buildings, "territorial defenses" assembling in schools and hospitals, and artillery being stationed in school yards. Still, what Russia can't show is footage of actual strike on city civilians with a valid military target in the strike zone while there are lot of footage of Russian strikes on city civilians without a valid military target in the strike zone. Anyway, Ukrainians have got to defend their cities. By your and German Nazi logic the defenders of Stalingrad are guilty of destruction of Stalingrad.
- actionfromafar 5y ago
  It has only been a couple of weeks yet. We will see how much will be left of Mariupol and other surrounded cities.
- mrighele 5y ago
  > I think you significantly overestimate how many in practice the Russian forces lose to drones. Note that the parent said not only drone fire, but also "drone guided fire". With help from drones artillery can be quite effective [1]. The more limited firepower of drones is used instead for more "surgical" tasks, like targeting artillery command posts [2], or supply behind the front line (seemingly, they are small enough that they are hard to target by Russian air defense) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSJPqkzupI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSJPqkzupI [2] https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1503162011076919298 https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/150316201107691929...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sofixa 5y ago

> he Russian forces have enough firepower to level cities to the ground, but they have orders to minimize damage if possible How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? It seems to be a ridiculous assumption long debunked. > Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down), so it does not make much sense to patrol the air space too much, since operating a plane is far from being cheap Nope, Ukrainian drones continue to inflict heavy damage - either directly or indirectly with targeting, just this past day there were direct strikes on a railway bridge, command post deep in Russian held territory, and an indirect one with artillery on Russian troops in a forest. Check out Oryx the blog or twitter account, they verify posts and retract errors if any are detected. Furthermore, Ukraine still operated fighters as of what, 2-3 says ago at the latest? Russia does not have air supremacy, only local air superiority.

ithkuil 5y ago
> How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? It seems to be a ridiculous assumption long debunked. One way to square it is that the perception of what is "minimal" is vastly different in their minds. Mind you, they decided to attack a well armed sovereign country that was definitely not welcoming them, and they have a total control of their media, so they don't really care about achieving surgical precision. That doesn't mean they must then choose to level cities to the ground. It's not a binary choice.
fuoqi 5y ago
>How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? You can compare this "mass destruction" with the Grozny's state after the second Chechen war or, if you want a more recent example, with Mosul and Hudaydah.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You missed the 'after' bit in your own comment.
- 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Lots of unsourced and implausible claims here, either you are making stuff up or you are pushing an agenda. > "they have orders to minimize damage if possible" Right, at a guess you are in Russia and not in Ukraine.

simonh 5y ago
I don't think that's fair. The Russians could have wrecked central Kyiv by now but clearly have been ordered not to, it's largely untouched. Of course there are good reasons for that, the Kyiv skyline is an iconic part of the shared Ukrainian and Russian cultural landscape. Images of it ruined by Russian bombardment would be impossible to square with Russia's propaganda position. On the other hand, clearly any such 'minimize damage' directive is not protecting smaller Ukrainian cities and towns.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  They have leveled cities. That Kyiv is still standing is because it is well defended, not because of Russians being particularly careful with damage minimization and as you may have noticed the war isn't over yet.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    How does “well-defended” defend against missiles? Couldn’t missile barrages already have destroyed central Kiev if Russia wanted that? (Genuine question)
    - baybal2 5y ago
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      That's mostly a cost and availability issue. Missiles tend to be used against high value targets where accuracy is more important than cost efficiency. The cruel economics of war: civilians are soft targets, so you don't need precision or the ability to penetrate very strong defenses.

belter 5y ago

It's incredible that the Ukrainians have S300. I guess some Western "private consultants" are probably analyzing them in detail;-)

Gasp0de 5y ago
Aren't S300 a rather old system from the 1980s? I doubt that there is anything still secret about those.
- belter 5y ago
  S300 is just the "brand". They have been upgraded over the years and it's a whole family. Of course it all depends on what version Ukraine has. I can't believe NATO would not love to have their hands on one, even an older generation one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system Edit: It looks like Greece ( a NATO member) also has S300 ( How did that happen !!?? ) and Turkey ( also NATO member) has the S400. Not sure if Turkey would allow close examination of their S400 capabilities, even as a NATO member.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Greece, a NATO member, has operated the S-300 for over 20 years. Slovakia has them as well.
  - throwawayffffas 5y ago
    > It looks like Greece ( a NATO member) also has S300 ( How did that happen !!?? ) It was a compromise after Cyprus got them, but choose not receive them after threats from Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_S-300_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_S-300_crisis) Greece also has a number of other Russian SAM they bought after the 90s in the lull of the tensions with Russia.
  - robbiep 5y ago
    Turkey getting S-400 was the reason for them being edged out of the F-35 program, so I don’t know how it all works but it’s not all hunky dory

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dotancohen 5y ago

> quickly get intelligence from NATO about planes in the area and thus > able to hide in cities Isn't hiding among civilians a war crime?

foverzar 5y ago
According to current media climate, it is Russian propaganda, rather than a war crime. Jokes aside, I suppose there is some kind of exempt for defenders, unless one can prove that civilians were held as hostages.
sofixa 5y ago
Nope, it's total war. There are no civilians, everyone is fighting against the foreign invaders ( or should be - of course there are refugees and people who don't want to die, but they often don't have the option).

tablespoon 5y ago

> The Kalibr missile is quite sufficient for striking stationary objects, so you don't need planes for those. Perhaps, but how many of those does Russia actually have? Whenever I read reports of US Tomahawk inventory, I'm always surprised by how few they actually have in inventory (e.g. guessing they'd run out quickly in a hot war). > Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down) My understanding is that's not true. The airspace is contested, since neither Russia nor Ukraine have full control. Ukraine still has planes and they're still flying them, according to this: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2022/03/11/the-u-s-cant-stop-poland-from-giving-ukraine-its-migs-00016664 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily....

blaser-waffle 5y ago
> Whenever I read reports of US Tomahawk inventory, I'm always surprised by how few they actually have in inventory (e.g. guessing they'd run out quickly in a hot war). And most of those are old. Really old in some cases. Like half got used in Iraq II and the other half are still around... Stockpiles of newer and scarier stuff is probably less known, however.

mda 5y ago

You are writing like "Pravda", please don't insult our intelligence.