This is weird. It would be too easy to chalk this up to some sort of inferiority of the Russian air force, only to discover later on that it's some ploy or strategy. Are they holding it in reserve for an even wider invasion, and if so, who's their next victim?
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2022
1 points (57.1% liked)
World News
32311 readers
1117 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems pretty obvious that they're trying to minimize civilian casualties since they don't want to turn the entire population against them. Indiscriminate bombing the way US likes to do it tends to result in a lot of negative consequences as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sanctions were much harsher than Putin expected. This decimated his war chest to maybe ten days of operations. So if this guy is correct, we'll see some indiscriminate bombing like the Russians did in Aleppo. If they're playing some 4-D chess, they'll continue to lose armor and SAMs to Ukrainian drones, maybe? We'll know in the next few days.
I'm not entirely sure I buy this either. Yes, the sanctions have hurt, and yes there's less money now... but that wouldn't explain the refusal to use air power... they weren't going to be able to buy more bombs and missiles even if they had the cash. Those aren't easily or quickly purchased.
This alone suggests that even if the sanctions hadn't hurt (or hadn't happened), they'd still only have as many munitions as they have now.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. The sanctions put a time limit on the invasion. This implies that we'll soon see the Russian airforce suddenly pushed all-in, in a desperate attempt before their gold reserves are depleted. That's all they have to trade with, now.
At that point, we'll see what the real state of the Russian airforce is. Out of precision munitions or unable to maintain their high tech planes? Or afraid of pilots defecting.
Russia's war doesn't depend on its economy. Russia doesn't buy its equipment. It is manufactured at home.
My home country Syria has suffered from a crippling economy for a decade, yet the government army is fully standing. Its biggest issue isn't supplies. It's manpower.
Yes, this explains what we've seen. Russia couldn't produce a single Su-27 without international trade. No country could. The lack of day-one air domination might be explained by this. They don't dare risk a precious asset in the expectation of years of sanctions.
Also, they're rolling out aging and poorly maintained armor, because that's what they manufactured at home. But it's the 21st century. Drones and shoulder-launched self-guiding munitions are cheap hard counters. I wouldn't want to be trapped inside a tank today!
As far as Syria goes, it wasn't facing off against another army. They struggled to stop a multitude of powers and factions fighting them and each other for years. Only the lack of a united opposition, and Russia's support, allowed that regime to persist. Shelling civilians with poison gas might work in Syria, but the whole world is watching Ukraine.
This is pure and utter nonsense. Russia has been literally preparing for this eventuality since 2014, and they're very much ready for these sanctions, even financial times acknowledges that these sanctions aren't likely to have much of an effect. Thinking that Russia didn't consider the worst case outcomes before making a decision to start a war is incredibly delusional.
On the other hand, the west was entirely unprepared for this and the west depends on both Russia and Ukraine for food, energy, metals, and plenty of other things. Energy prices in UK have already shot up 54% and now there are talks about prices going up as high as 300%. I wonder how western public will react when thee bills for necessities shoot through the roof. Seems like nobody is considering the impact that economic warfare will have on the western countries.
It's also worth remembering that the whole conflict has only lasted 5 days so far, and here's how it compares with US invasion of Iraq which is a small isolated country, half the size of Ukraine where US invaded with 10x as many troops and had utter disregard for civilian casualties.
All this spin isn't going to change the fact that Russia is going broke. They clearly underestimated the capture of their foreign currency reserves. Putin doesn't like to hear bad news, so his advisors likely painted a rosy picture. "It's the 2014 victory lap! We'll in Kyiv before they know it!"
Buddy, you should read up some history. In particular, go look up what Russia already went through in the 90s and in 2014. The elephant in the room is that this tactic has never worked once. This has been tried with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela just to name a few examples. All of them are still around. These are small countries that aren't even self reliant. If these tactics haven't worked there, what reason is there to believe they would work in Russia.
It frankly amazes me just how deluded some people are. Do people seriously think Putin managed to stay in power all these years because he's an irrational fool who makes rash decisions he doesn't consider the outcomes of. It's just fantastical to me.
I certainly suspect Putin has surrounded himself with sycophants. That Russian press release where he's talking down to his defense ministers doesn't look good. They look like they're about to piss their pants. "Yes, boss! We'll roll into Kyiv by the second day, tops!"
This is going to make the 90s Russian bond default look like a joy ride. And Russia is certainly not self reliant. Has the Moscow exchange re-opened yet? Are the trains in Moscow running again with credit card transactions? Putin clearly miscalculated here, both militarily and economically. I don't see what his exit strategy is here. Neither NK, Iran, nor Venezuela were trying to fund an invasion when sanctioned. He'll be broke before he can dig his heels in and demand terms. Russia, however, can safe face by ousting him.
You certainly sound like you're living in an invented reality. There is no point arguing with you over this as the reality will become quite clear in the coming months.
This is pure and utter nonsense. Russia has been literally preparing for this eventuality since 2014,
Whatever a person's ideology is, or their opinion of Russia, I think we can all agree they've been preparing since then.
And yes, it is a fairly strong counter-argument to the idea that they just unexpectedly ran out of money. If they've been preparing for 7 years, the missiles and bombs should have been stockpiled. It's not like creditors showed up and repossessed those.
But it's perplexing. Even if we accept at face value your assertion that they want to minimize civilian casualties and not turn the Ukrainian public against them, the laser-guided bombs hitting military targets would put a quick end to resistance and shouldn't make things worse from a PR perspective.
They either don't have them (seems unlikely, but if true, also inexplicable), or aren't using them. And it's a little fucking weird.
Seems like nobody is considering the impact that economic warfare will have on the western countries.
Well, if there is one criticism of the west you could level at us that's difficult to deny, it'd be that. Since when does anyone here consider the impact of anything farther than about 3 business days out? Touche.
If this was a particularly bad winter, we'd already be howling.
It’s also worth remembering that the whole conflict has only lasted 5 days so far, and here’s how it compares with US invasion of Iraq which
Good point. It's been a long while, I guess I'd forgotten the timetable for that one. But what will we see in the next 3-6 weeks if the comparison is apt?
Entirely possible that they don't want to reveal their full capabilities to NATO unless they have to. They're already doing very well using old and outdated tech, so they likely don't see a reason to show off their latest tech unless they have to. One of the reasons could be that they anticipate that NATO may join in after all, at which point they would have the advantage of surprise.
How this progresses in the coming weeks is the real question. If Russia sees more resistance than they anticipated then they may escalate. We've already seen signs of that in Kiev and a few other cities. It's very hard to predict what will actually happen, but sincerely hope that the ongoing negotiations will result in some solution that's acceptable to both sides so that the conflict can end.
One of the reasons could be that they anticipate that NATO may join in after all, at which point they would have the advantage of surprise.
This is semi-plausible. And scary as fuck.
Were it true, though, it might mean that they intend to do something that inevitably provokes such a response. It's not as if NATO is itching to get into the fight on this one. My read is that even if they bumbled across a border into a NATO country, NATO would do everything they could to not follow up on that unless it looked like the Russians planned on staying.
but sincerely hope that the ongoing negotiations will result in some solution that’s acceptable to both sides so that the conflict can end.
I have no clue what would be acceptable to either. Ukrainians obviously want the Russians out, and permanently. They'd likely want reparations were they in any position to demand them. They definitely want some sort of insurance policy against a repeat, of which only inclusion in NATO seems to fit the bill. (Or nukes, but even the US is clear on the subject of non-proliferation... they can't make their own and no one will give them those.)
Russia wants something that's unclear to me. They probably don't want to keep the land, or to integrate it into the Russian Federation. But they want it weakened to the point that it could not defend itself against another incursion, at minimum. Probably also to the point that if they choose, they can meddle in its internal politics.
I don't think those are negotiable. And god help everyone if Putin's really going after that horseshit Dugin wrote up.
I don't want to fall for propaganda, and I try not to (not even the stuff that I find comforting), but this is just impossible to make fucking sense of. Russia doesn't seem to be behaving very sanely, which my entire life was the one thing you could count on them doing. Realpolitik seems to have been thrown out with the trash.
This is semi-plausible. And scary as fuck.
Indeed, as that could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust.
Russia wants something that’s unclear to me.
Russia wants 3 things as far as I know:
- Crimea is now Russia
- Dimilitarization of Ukraine
- Neutral Status
I imagine that they will continue military action until Ukraine agrees to these terms. Unless NATO intervenes militarily, which opens the door for a nuclear holocaust, Russia knows that they will eventually control the country and will be in position to implement their demands.
To understand why Russia is behaving the way it is you have to start from the premise that NATO is a hostile military alliance with the ultimate goal of enacting regime change in Russia.
Whether this is actually the case or not is entirely besides the point. This is what Russia is convinced of, and NATO actions can certainly be interpreted that way especially given that NATO refuses to negotiate with Russia in good faith and has now expanded right up to their border.
What happened in Ukraine is akin to if Russia engineered regime change in Mexico to install a pro-Russian government, and then Mexico asked to join CSTO and host Russian nukes on US border.
Starting from this perspective conflict is inevitable, and then it simply becomes a question on whose terms this conflict will happen. Russia calculated that they are likely in the best position they're going to be to take Ukraine, and that their position will steadily become worse going forward. They're willing to take any amount of economic blow back because they see this as an existential threat.
Well, #1 is a done deal. That's not going to change. #3 is hypothetically on the table, but is a hard sell given the current circumstances. #2 just won't happen. They'd never agree to it in a million years, not unless they are thoroughly broken... and the sorts of misery that have to be put on them for that are the same that would provoke western intervention.
It would be irrational for Ukraine to agree to demilitarization. For reasons I hope are obvious to everyone. But if we can ignore those...
Then we have to assume that the secessionists in Donbass and Luhansk won't give up either. The Ukrainian government would no longer be able to resist them (with or without Russia sending weapons to the secessionists). They'd see their country whittled away over a few decades, until nothing is left.
They really have been put into circumstances where #2 is a dealbreaker, so if that's a non-negotiable point for Russia... this is utterly fucked. There will be no peace.
I really wish someone would put forth the option of Russia joining NATO. Maybe if they were in the club, they'd no longer feel like it's specifically designed to threaten them. Even if 70 years ago it was made clear that the Soviet Union wasn't welcome, supposedly they're no longer that entity, right?
Right, that's what I'm thinking as well. Crimea isn't going back to Ukraine and neutral status is something that could be negotiated. I don't see Ukraine agreeing to demilitarization unless Russia destroyed their military by force. I'm hoping that's the point Russia is willing to bend on.
Donbass republics are likely lost to Ukraine at this point as well. It's hard to see how they'd go back regardless of what ends up being negotiated.
Joining NATO is precisely what Russia floated in the 90s, but was rejected out of hand. This was the turning point when Russia started treating NATO as a hostile alliance. This article is the best summary of the role NATO actually plays in practice that I've come across.
Joining NATO is precisely what Russia floated in the 90s, but was rejected out of hand.
I have read that Stalin himself floated this in the 1950s, shortly after it was announced. That because NATO was designed specifically to thwart USSR, this was not only rejected, but with the maximum possible insult (privately at least, not publicly).
That's all ancient history.
If they floated this in the 1990s and it was rejected again, then Clinton was a bigger fool than I figured him for. And even for my anti-commie tendencies, it seems... well, "harsh" doesn't quite cut it. Irrationally brutal? I dunno. I hope you're wrong on that and just misremembering something. I don't see how that could ever be a defensible policy.
This was the turning point when Russia started treating NATO as a hostile alliance.
Then Russia is, regrettably, justified in that stance. That needs to change.
Whatever else I am, I am not a warmonger. If Russia were genuinely invaded by another power (China I suppose, no one else is realistic), I don't see why we shouldn't do what we can to put a stop to it. We wouldn't be able to help at that point though, for the same reasons we can't do much about Ukraine... the invader has nukes and the threat of using them is implicit if not explicitly made.
However, if Russia were inducted into NATO, then the potential invader would have to know that we'd retaliate and resist. It should deter that. Let them in for fuck's sake. Fast-track it.
Donbass republics are likely lost to Ukraine at this point as well. It’s hard to see how they’d go back regardless of what ends up being negotiated.
Yeh, and pragmatists in the Ukrainian government know that as well, it's just impossible for them to say it out loud. They don't like it, but I suspect when the microphones are turned off they're resigned to that.
For me? Personally? It's not even that big of a deal. In principle, secession is no different than divorce, and a seceding region doesn't have to have a good reason or any reason at all to do so. It's a shitty tactic to use in war. And we both know that this was egged on by Moscow. I think we disagree only on whether the Russians cheated in that game.
The concern though, in Ukraine, is that it doesn't stop there. Sympathizers in the bordering areas will be pissed that their neighbors 5 miles down the road got to leave but that they didn't. If Ukraine is hobbled so that they can't police that (demilitarized), then they are looking at no longer having any sort of country at all in 40 years time.
Even should Russia acknowledge that concern and attempt to mitigate it (so that negotiations can go forward), the jackasses in Donbass won't necessarily obey. Russia might have set something up there that they'd lose control of, and this alone could torpedo peace talks.
At this point I really think that NATO needs to be disbanded and new security architecture created for Europe based on current realities. NATO is a historical artifact of the world order that was formed after WW2, and that world order no longer exists. Ultimately, the only way that peace can be achieved is by creating a framework that addresses everyone's security concerns.
I really don't see secession as a big deal either. I think the problem for smaller nations is that they're always going to end up under pressure from larger nations. Countries like Ukraine are stuck in the middle of geopolitical games between forces that are much bigger than them.
Ukraine dissolving entirely is also a very real possibility. That could happen very rapidly once Ukrainian military is defeated. There are a lot tensions within the country that have been escalating over the past decade. Ukraine splitting up into separate states may actually be the best result going forward.
At this point I really think that NATO needs to be disbanded and new security architecture created for Europe based on current realities.
Possibly. But such a scenario could only work once things are calmed down... otherwise it just looks like (to one side) that you're wanting that because it's momentarily convenient.
And when will things ever calm down? Even should the current crisis resolve itself, there will be another somewhere else, and soon. Russia's not the only problematic entity... Turkey likes to stir shit just as much. The Balkans are, well, the Balkans... aren't they about due to blow up on their own again, even without outside help?
Considering the European tradition of ignoring everything until the world nearly ends and only afterward doing something about it, there's just never going to be an opportunity.
For that matter, how do you even design it so that it is both effective and doesn't look like (to the Russians) to be NATO 2.0 and made just to fuck with them?
I highly recommend this book from Ray Dalio to get an idea of what we can expect going forward. I find it does a really good job putting current events into historic context and makes a strong case that what we're currently seeing is par for the course for where we happen to be in the historical cycle.
I agree with you that there's pretty much no chance of NATO being abolished in the foreseeable future. If Russia chose to play a smart diplomatic game, I think they could've managed to wean Europe from NATO by offering trade and cooperation. Unfortunately, they chose to start a war and confirm all the fears Europe had regarding them.
And I don't really see how an architecture could be designed that doesn't look like a threat to either Europe or Russia at this point. Both sides have plenty of reasons to mistrust each other, and I think we'll continue to see a very tense situation in the foreseeable future.
think they could’ve managed to wean Europe from NATO by offering trade and cooperation.
As someone firmly on the other side of this, with strong and persistent anti-Russia biases, I can still say that if they had done so this would've worked.
It's what I want, it's what everyone wants. Hell, they might even have done the economic warfare thing themselves, gotten revenge on a few enemies if that's what they wanted, and everyone would still cheer them on for it.
There's some sort of underdog "we can't ever win" attitude going on with them that compels this sort of behavior. Which is strange coming from the first nation to ever make it into space. The only one who was ever a plausible rival to the US.
And I don’t really see how an architecture could be designed that doesn’t look like a threat to either Europe or Russia at this point. Both sides have plenty of reasons to mistrust each other,
I don't want the Russian people miserable. I don't want them to suffer in poverty. I don't have any burning need to see them punished (and I'd struggle to think of anything they should be punished for). Hell, on the other hand, there's Germany... "cough cough".
Honestly, I wish someone in the US state department would pull their head out of their ass and at least try to convince Russia that they should join NATO, and at least make them feel like they are wanted within it. I don't want them to be our enemy, and I don't think we can afford for them to be it. We've at least been allies, if a long time ago. We should be again.
Having grown up in USSR, I can give you some insight into what people in Russia think. People deeply resent the west because they feel that the west chose to treat the Soviet Union as the enemy. It was promptly invaded in 1918 right after the revolution ended. Then it was plunged into WW2 a couple of decades later, and after that there was the Cold War. USSR has been under threat of war from the western world throughout its whole existence.
Then in the 90s when USSR collapsed everyone thought that we'd join the west and live as one big happy family since we chose to adopt the western model and there was nothing left to fight about. Instead of that Russia treated to economic shock and plundering by western powers. Life became absolutely horrific for the vast majority of people, and I personally remember things like food shortages during that time.
This was the point where people realized that the west never had any good intentions towards Russia. This is precisely what gave rise to Putin who managed to take control of the economy and make Russia a sovereign state again.
Nowadays there's deep mistrust on both sides, and I really don't know how that can be bridged after this war. It seems to me that relations between the west and Russia are rolling back to USSR days where both sides are treating each other as an enemy and an existential threat. I suspect that things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Lol I watched a Russian tank aim at and run-over a commuter in his car. Minimize?
It's a war, horrors will always happen in wars. However, when you compare this to what US did in Iraq it's incredibly restrained. The first thing US did was to do shock and awe where they bombed the shit out of the civilian population in major cities.
We get it. You hate the US.
You should too
If you don't hate the US government, you are in a small minority in the world and even within the US itself.
There's a reason why the majority of the population doesn't vote. EDIT: Apparently this is only true for midterms, but trust in government remains low. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/
Amazing counterpoint you've got there.
No proof it was Russian. There were no Z or other markings on it and it happened in a part of Ukraine where no Russian activity was reported. So more than likely it was Ukrainian. In any case, it seems like whoever was driving has some severe mental health issues and should not be in active duty.
rusi.org is not russia.org :
The Royal (U.K.) United Services Institute (RUSI) ... i like this better giving the context !
Edit : (after reading the article) Experts on the subject know a lot more than us, still many uncertainties remain.
It suggests to me, given certain other things I've been hearing, that perhaps there is not a unified resolve among the various heads of the armed forces to conduct this....'exercise', that perhaps the head of the Russian Air Force is not entirely on board, as it were.
If Russia had no reliable air force, they would have been attacked long ago by NATO (nuclear armed terrorist organization). Fact is that Russia has the most advanced military planes in the world, and unlike F-35 they are actually combat ready and cost efficient.
Saw a thread speculating along those lines https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1499513760922406917 holding back to prove they can do it with ground forces, trying to minimize civilian casualties, or maybe sending in the junk first to flush out where defenses are
"Decisive air battle", what a joker. Most Ukrainian planes, airports and air defenses were destroyed by standoff weapons in the first hours of the war. Russia has air superiority since multiple days now. Of couse thats ignoring the ghost of kiev, who shoots down a dozen Russian planes every day lmao.