4 ms·

Ukraine still has working air defense, Russia is quite obviously afraid of sending bombers deep into Ukraine.

blagie 5y ago
Sort of. A lot of it depends on precision and altitude. I think a high-altitude bomber, carpet-bombing, with a fighter escort, would be pretty safe from Russia's perspective. Stingers can hit up to 3.8km. Starstreak is 5km. Etc. For comparison, a B2 flies at 15km. Ukraine does have some defences there -- an S300 will shoot down targets that high, and fighters will go that high -- but it's a much harder problem. That's why Ukraine is asking fighter jets, S300/Patriot-style systems, and a no-fly zone. If Russia starts carpet bombing before Ukraine get those, it's game over for Ukraine. That doesn't mean Russia won the war -- the military will keep fighting -- just that Ukrainan population will have lost: - The country will be rubble. - Massive civilian causalities - Economy on par with Iraq during ISIS or Afghanistan today - Need for post-WWII style reconstruction ... and so on.
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  The rebuttal to this argument of "Well russia could just flatten them if they want" is, well, why hasn't russia done so?
  - blagie 5y ago
    Because it's a bad idea to do so. If Russia were to commit true genocide -- kill 40 million people in Ukraine by levelling the country -- it would serve no military purpose. On the other hand: - Putin would go down in history as worse than Hitler - Thousands of people -- including, for example, Russians with relatives in Ukraine -- would want to kill Putin. Russia would have a terrorist and fifth column problem unprecedented in the history of the world. - Russia would go from "outcast" to "North Korea level outcast." China and India would almost certainly turn against it - It just might be far enough to draw NATO / EU into the war. That's a war Russia is guaranteed to lose. If nukes fly, everyone loses. If they don't, Russia loses. ... and so on. How would it advance Russia's interests? The above far outweighs the benefits (oil, Crimea, and a bit of a buffer zone).

Sort of. A lot of it depends on precision and altitude. I think a high-altitude bomber, carpet-bombing, with a fighter escort, would be pretty safe from Russia's perspective. Stingers can hit up to 3.8km. Starstreak is 5km. Etc. For comparison, a B2 flies at 15km. Ukraine does have some defences there -- an S300 will shoot down targets that high, and fighters will go that high -- but it's a much harder problem. That's why Ukraine is asking fighter jets, S300/Patriot-style systems, and a no-fly zone. If Russia starts carpet bombing before Ukraine get those, it's game over for Ukraine. That doesn't mean Russia won the war -- the military will keep fighting -- just that Ukrainan population will have lost: - The country will be rubble. - Massive civilian causalities - Economy on par with Iraq during ISIS or Afghanistan today - Need for post-WWII style reconstruction ... and so on.

mrguyorama 5y ago
The rebuttal to this argument of "Well russia could just flatten them if they want" is, well, why hasn't russia done so?
- blagie 5y ago
  Because it's a bad idea to do so. If Russia were to commit true genocide -- kill 40 million people in Ukraine by levelling the country -- it would serve no military purpose. On the other hand: - Putin would go down in history as worse than Hitler - Thousands of people -- including, for example, Russians with relatives in Ukraine -- would want to kill Putin. Russia would have a terrorist and fifth column problem unprecedented in the history of the world. - Russia would go from "outcast" to "North Korea level outcast." China and India would almost certainly turn against it - It just might be far enough to draw NATO / EU into the war. That's a war Russia is guaranteed to lose. If nukes fly, everyone loses. If they don't, Russia loses. ... and so on. How would it advance Russia's interests? The above far outweighs the benefits (oil, Crimea, and a bit of a buffer zone).