6 ms·

> There may be a lesson for nato. Russia’s initial failure to gain air superiority could be explained away by the Kremlin’s secrecy over the decision to go to w

> There may be a lesson for nato. Russia’s initial failure to gain air superiority could be explained away by the Kremlin’s secrecy over the decision to go to war and a lack of planning time, says Mr Bronk. But in his view, the air force’s passivity could also reflect inexperience or incompetence. Where is the line between "objectively assessing an enemy's weaknesses" and "blatant wishfull thinking" ? While we're discussing how bad the russian air force is doing, cities are being bombed constantly, and the ukrainian governement is imploring for a no-fly zone that no one will enforce given it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Oh, and starting a nuclear war at the same time. Maybe it's an operationnal failure on Russian's side - but if so, they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, even if they can't win quickly. Hopefully something will change the game - but I doubt "hoping for the other side to secretly be stupid" will cut it.

raverbashing 5y ago
> cities are being bombed constantly Yes but apparently not by the Air Force. Mostly by ground based missiles (and maybe some Ship based ones) The No-Fly zone won't fix these and will come at a significant cost.
- Pelic4n 5y ago
  Enforcing the No-Fly zone actually means running SEAD missions to take care of those, including in russian territory. That's why it would bring WW3.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  It is estimated that Russia performs 200 air raids a day - hence the relatively high number of aircraft shot down by the Ukrainians.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    And to add some more perspective: Desert Storm started off with > 1000 sorties / day.
- baybal2 5y ago
nailer 5y ago
> Oh, and starting a nuclear war at the same time. Angry FSB Guy (which may be entirely false) stated that the decision isn't Putin's alone to make and that Russians are not willing to die for Putin.
- op00to 5y ago
  I’m not willing to bet on angry FSB guy being real and correct.
belter 5y ago
According to the US the Ukrainian Air Foce still has a lot of assets on the ground. So they might be overstating their case about the no fly zone to get NATO involved. Can't blame them, as they face an existential threat. "..A senior U.S. defense official added Friday that the Ukrainians “are not using their fixed-wing fighter aircraft very much. They have about 56 fighter aircraft remaining on the ground, and that is the majority of their fleet.” Kyiv is only flying about five to 10 sorties a day compared to Russia’s roughly 200, the official continued. The Ukrainians “haven't proven that they need to do more than what they're doing. They've been very effective with the other tools that they have used, very creatively, and those are having a good effect on Russian airpower...”" 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...
SubjectToChange 5y ago
> ... it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Beating the Russian Air Force in the air isn't the primary issue, we can do that. The bigger issue is that a no-fly-zone must be secured, i.e. bombing radar and SAM installations in Ukraine/Belarus/Russia. > ... they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, ... Quite the opposite, what does a Russian "win" look like here? A huge portion of the population doesn't want them there, a puppet government won't be internationally recognized, and the resulting insurgency would make Chechnya look quaint. Not to mention the humiliation that Russia has already suffered. It's lunacy to think that Russia is gaining anything out of this. It's not even certain that Russia can beat Ukraine anymore, and it's already a pyrrhic victory if they do.
- polotics 5y ago
  I am beginning to think that behind the apparent lunacy, a new & old kind of war is rearing its ugly head: A pure resource-grab for arable land and natural gas & coal reserves, with no intention to preserve the existence of the local population beyond what's needed for forced labor, and no care for any international opinion...
  - SubjectToChange 5y ago
    There are so many issues with what you're suggesting that it's difficult to know where to start. Put simply, your worry is unfounded.
    - zasdffaa 5y ago
      Please post useful information rather than blanket 'nope'. If there are so many, name the top 3 (say) or I can't learn anything.
  - phtrivier 5y ago
    Intuitively say, I would say it's a "kill two birds with one missile", situation: you get a buffer state with NATO _and_ some resources (water / minerals.) By a very naive reading, this maps [1] seems to scream: "Dombass has all the mines. It's the mines, stupid !" ; but I could not find any resource on the topic (neither to tell it's the real casus belli, nor if they're nothing else to grab there.) [1] https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-field-png-favpng-pthZUXzG7eKaaKZxcHD2bRF0k.jpg https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-...
throwawayffffas 5y ago
The most convincing argument I have heard breaks down to two components. Relative inexperience (not inability) in SEAD(Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) in the face of a robust Ukrainian air defense network. A desire to preserve force and munitions in case of direct NATO involvement. Additionally there is a third potential reason, I am no military expert by I assume the acquisition and engagement of targets in populated areas is hard from the air. All these probably skews the risk/effectiveness balance toward a less aggressive air stance.
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  I agree with those points, but will also add that the VVS is likely as poorly maintained as the Russian Army. They may have a lot of aircraft sitting around, but may only have the fuel, munitions, and parts to keep a fraction of it working. There was a lot of discussion for a while about the state of the tires in the Russian army, and how that often led to break downs or troops getting stuck. Likewise, something as simple or mundane as not having enough flairs or chaff, could be enough to keep much of the fleet grounded, doubly so in the face of a reasonably effective Ukrainian AA network. Multi-million dollar aircraft are temperamental beasts, and missing even a few parts, or not being confident in said parts, is essentially a recipe for casualties, and they can't just conscript more SU-35s
TomSwirly 5y ago
> > But in his view, the air force’s passivity could also reflect inexperience or incompetence. > Where is the line between "objectively assessing an enemy's weaknesses" and "blatant wishfull thinking" ? Everyone expected the much, much larger Russian Air Force to establish air superiority in Ukraine within days, even hours. When an organization systematically failed to be able to perform even its basic activities for no obvious reason, organizational incompetence is almost certain.
kergonath 5y ago
> Maybe it's an operationnal failure on Russian's side - but if so, they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, even if they can't win quickly. That’s pretty much it in the short term, from what I can tell. They can only lose over the long term, by bleeding themselves dry to find their imperialist adventure in Ukraine just like the USSR did in Afghanistan. It is probably likely to happen. It’s cold comfort for the people being bombed, though.
mike_k 5y ago
> [...]a no-fly zone that no one will enforce given it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Oh, and starting a nuclear war at the same time. A thought experiment: - if Putin is not insane and wants to live and enjoy his lifestyle (but plays his role to frighten everyone) - that means he is unlikely to use nukes - which means it might be practical to establish a no-flight zone, etc If you believe he is insane, however, the West has nothing else to do than to let him grab whatever he wants (Estonia, maybe?). This is a dead end for NATO.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
> they can't really _lose_ nuclear weapon aside, 40million motivated Ukrainians with NATO weapons are much much much more powerful than 140million lost Russians with dysfunctional weapons
wolverine876 5y ago
> Maybe it's an operationnal failure on Russian's side - but if so, they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, even if they can't win quickly They could very well lose and are likely to, according to most experts. Even if they do take Kyiv before they run out of money, materiel, and political support - which is uncertain - they are very unlikely to sustain an occupation and defeat an insurgency. Invaders often lose to insurgencies - look at the US in the last 20 years.

raverbashing 5y ago

> cities are being bombed constantly Yes but apparently not by the Air Force. Mostly by ground based missiles (and maybe some Ship based ones) The No-Fly zone won't fix these and will come at a significant cost.

Pelic4n 5y ago
Enforcing the No-Fly zone actually means running SEAD missions to take care of those, including in russian territory. That's why it would bring WW3.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
It is estimated that Russia performs 200 air raids a day - hence the relatively high number of aircraft shot down by the Ukrainians.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  And to add some more perspective: Desert Storm started off with > 1000 sorties / day.
baybal2 5y ago

nailer 5y ago

> Oh, and starting a nuclear war at the same time. Angry FSB Guy (which may be entirely false) stated that the decision isn't Putin's alone to make and that Russians are not willing to die for Putin.

op00to 5y ago
I’m not willing to bet on angry FSB guy being real and correct.

belter 5y ago

According to the US the Ukrainian Air Foce still has a lot of assets on the ground. So they might be overstating their case about the no fly zone to get NATO involved. Can't blame them, as they face an existential threat. "..A senior U.S. defense official added Friday that the Ukrainians “are not using their fixed-wing fighter aircraft very much. They have about 56 fighter aircraft remaining on the ground, and that is the majority of their fleet.” Kyiv is only flying about five to 10 sorties a day compared to Russia’s roughly 200, the official continued. The Ukrainians “haven't proven that they need to do more than what they're doing. They've been very effective with the other tools that they have used, very creatively, and those are having a good effect on Russian airpower...”" 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...

SubjectToChange 5y ago

> ... it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Beating the Russian Air Force in the air isn't the primary issue, we can do that. The bigger issue is that a no-fly-zone must be secured, i.e. bombing radar and SAM installations in Ukraine/Belarus/Russia. > ... they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, ... Quite the opposite, what does a Russian "win" look like here? A huge portion of the population doesn't want them there, a puppet government won't be internationally recognized, and the resulting insurgency would make Chechnya look quaint. Not to mention the humiliation that Russia has already suffered. It's lunacy to think that Russia is gaining anything out of this. It's not even certain that Russia can beat Ukraine anymore, and it's already a pyrrhic victory if they do.

polotics 5y ago
I am beginning to think that behind the apparent lunacy, a new & old kind of war is rearing its ugly head: A pure resource-grab for arable land and natural gas & coal reserves, with no intention to preserve the existence of the local population beyond what's needed for forced labor, and no care for any international opinion...
- SubjectToChange 5y ago
  There are so many issues with what you're suggesting that it's difficult to know where to start. Put simply, your worry is unfounded.
  - zasdffaa 5y ago
    Please post useful information rather than blanket 'nope'. If there are so many, name the top 3 (say) or I can't learn anything.
- phtrivier 5y ago
  Intuitively say, I would say it's a "kill two birds with one missile", situation: you get a buffer state with NATO _and_ some resources (water / minerals.) By a very naive reading, this maps [1] seems to scream: "Dombass has all the mines. It's the mines, stupid !" ; but I could not find any resource on the topic (neither to tell it's the real casus belli, nor if they're nothing else to grab there.) [1] https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-field-png-favpng-pthZUXzG7eKaaKZxcHD2bRF0k.jpg https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-...

throwawayffffas 5y ago

The most convincing argument I have heard breaks down to two components. Relative inexperience (not inability) in SEAD(Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) in the face of a robust Ukrainian air defense network. A desire to preserve force and munitions in case of direct NATO involvement. Additionally there is a third potential reason, I am no military expert by I assume the acquisition and engagement of targets in populated areas is hard from the air. All these probably skews the risk/effectiveness balance toward a less aggressive air stance.

blaser-waffle 5y ago
I agree with those points, but will also add that the VVS is likely as poorly maintained as the Russian Army. They may have a lot of aircraft sitting around, but may only have the fuel, munitions, and parts to keep a fraction of it working. There was a lot of discussion for a while about the state of the tires in the Russian army, and how that often led to break downs or troops getting stuck. Likewise, something as simple or mundane as not having enough flairs or chaff, could be enough to keep much of the fleet grounded, doubly so in the face of a reasonably effective Ukrainian AA network. Multi-million dollar aircraft are temperamental beasts, and missing even a few parts, or not being confident in said parts, is essentially a recipe for casualties, and they can't just conscript more SU-35s

TomSwirly 5y ago

> > But in his view, the air force’s passivity could also reflect inexperience or incompetence. > Where is the line between "objectively assessing an enemy's weaknesses" and "blatant wishfull thinking" ? Everyone expected the much, much larger Russian Air Force to establish air superiority in Ukraine within days, even hours. When an organization systematically failed to be able to perform even its basic activities for no obvious reason, organizational incompetence is almost certain.

kergonath 5y ago

> Maybe it's an operationnal failure on Russian's side - but if so, they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, even if they can't win quickly. That’s pretty much it in the short term, from what I can tell. They can only lose over the long term, by bleeding themselves dry to find their imperialist adventure in Ukraine just like the USSR did in Afghanistan. It is probably likely to happen. It’s cold comfort for the people being bombed, though.

mike_k 5y ago

> [...]a no-fly zone that no one will enforce given it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Oh, and starting a nuclear war at the same time. A thought experiment: - if Putin is not insane and wants to live and enjoy his lifestyle (but plays his role to frighten everyone) - that means he is unlikely to use nukes - which means it might be practical to establish a no-flight zone, etc If you believe he is insane, however, the West has nothing else to do than to let him grab whatever he wants (Estonia, maybe?). This is a dead end for NATO.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

> they can't really _lose_ nuclear weapon aside, 40million motivated Ukrainians with NATO weapons are much much much more powerful than 140million lost Russians with dysfunctional weapons

wolverine876 5y ago

> Maybe it's an operationnal failure on Russian's side - but if so, they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, even if they can't win quickly They could very well lose and are likely to, according to most experts. Even if they do take Kyiv before they run out of money, materiel, and political support - which is uncertain - they are very unlikely to sustain an occupation and defeat an insurgency. Invaders often lose to insurgencies - look at the US in the last 20 years.