Russia’s way of conducting urban warfare bodes ill for Kyiv
economist.com
economist.com
Any "gains" fall to the brass, the people who would likely never see real fighting, but readily order battalions of men to "take" a town or city to play the probabilities game of death with the objective of "winning" the objective.
I've read this phrase in Russian years ago, but can't remember where exactly.
> In 2004 fighting between American forces and insurgents in Fallujah, in Iraq, damaged or destroyed 70% of the city’s buildings. When a coalition including Iraq, America and others liberated Mosul, another Iraqi city, from the Islamic State group in 2016-17, over 10,000 civilians were killed—around 3,200 of them by the coalition—and two-fifths of the civilian population had to flee. It was also lethal for those on the ground: Iraq’s army suffered 10,000 casualties.
I think it's indisputable that the Ukraine war and the 2003 Iraq war are/were completely unjust, and our feelings about the Ukraine war should guide our future policy about other supposedly "just" wars.
At least for me WW II urban warfare is all but synonymous with the Battle for Stalingrad, which is arguably the nastiest battle in human history. Who is romanticising that?
To prevent their atrocities from being broadcast they’ll probably prioritise cutting the internet.
You only need one good connection.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/elon-musk-activates-starlink-i...
Whether Russia cares about the bad PR it would cause by blowing up international media (including crews from places like CCTV) is another matter.
These reports use unnamed sources, but there are reports that it was almost entirely a PR move to destroy large structures, and that decision makers weren't aware of the presence of Associated Press and Al-Jazeera until after the "knock" bombs were already hitting the roof (it's my understanding that these offices are prominently registered with the IDF in order to prevent such events). https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-only-discov...
> However, he added, the IDF was aware that Hamas was winning the PR war in Jerusalem, in mixed Arab-Jewish cities in Israel and in Lebanon. Moreover, its rocket fire at Israel was escalating. Consequently, he said, both the politicians and senior army officers “were looking for a victory picture.”
> ...
> This source linked the strike on Al-Jalaa to an earlier attack on Hamas’ underground tunnel network, “which began well, but afterward it become clear that it hadn’t succeeded, so they were looking for something to give the public, some victory, even a small one. That’s why the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was so quick to release pictures and videos of before and after the attack on the building. The IDF didn’t understand the implications of this incident and released the pictures of the building’s ruins as a public relations victory.”
No. You don't like it? Make your own comment. I like the NY Post.
Remember the Ukrainian anthem:
Ukraine is not yet dead, nor its glory and freedom,
Luck will still smile on us brother-Ukrainians.
Our enemies will die, as the dew does in the sunshine,
and we, too, brothers, we'll live happily in our land.
My favorite renditions of it, quite different ones: https://youtu.be/yAthTRmepys https://youtu.be/ouXXAE73ASY
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/kgorchinskaya/status/149797926...
There are signs that he is losing the confidence of Russia's elite:
https://nitter.pussthecat.org/olliecarroll/status/1497944338...
In terms of being at risk of a coup, you have to look back to Kruschev to see a leader in Moscow more clearly in danger of losing his grip on power. The invocation of the nuclear threat can only have increased this danger.
In terms of civilian deaths per capita, the loss in Grozny was easily 20x, for example.
It’s not over until it’s over.
So what.. we're talking 20-30 years in the future? Taiwan will still likely be critical to semiconductor manufacturing as they're starting to take over more of the R&D role that USA has traditionally had.
That far ahead, anything could happen. Hell, China could go through another liberalisation phase. If the blue party in Taiwan gets to power again, China will likely have a period of friendlier relations with Taiwan as well.
Calling Putin's bluff on invading Ukraine was the biggest mistake the West made. NATO should have seeked to recruit new member countries from other regions. They forced Putin into action.
If you are calling for an assault on Russia in the hopes of making Putin bow out of this war, you would be effectively starting WWIII. Putin has just recently called bluff on readying the nuclear warheads, I don't think any leader wants to antagonize the situation any further.
The most reasonable course of action IMO (with the least amount of casualties) is to let Putin have his way for now, and let him deal with the consequences later on.
How did we do that? I think we knew he was serious from the beginning.
And we behaved accordingly, though shamefully, in my opinion. We ought to have done "to others what we would have them do to us" (i.e. send aid, supplies, and troops immediately to Ukraine, regardless of the geopolitics involved.)
How? When Ukraine's borders are surrounded by Russian armies and Pro-Russian separatists now.
If you are talking about having done that pro-actively, then that's a failure on your part. One that may have a profound effect on Ukraine's defense.
This is complete nonsense.
The world can do much now. Even from just a humanitarian perspective, accepting refugees, making sure people don't starve (Ukraine, also Afghanistan, and elsewhere).
It's the number one reason why this is is happening.
Putin said it was a red line on about 75 separate occasions. Ukraine ignored and pushed ahead anyway. NATO ignored and pushed ahead anyway.
Two days before the invasion as Putin announced a "semi" pull out of amassed, Zelensky reiterated his commitment to joining NATO.
NATO destroyed Libya (now on its second civil war). I doubt they'd leave Russia alone after incorporating Ukraine. It would be irrational to not fear its encroachment.
What Putin thinks about what Ukraine should or should not do stops at the borders of the Russian Federation.
Russia could decide to stop trading with Ukraine, or impose sanctions on Ukraine, or any of a number of other legal options.
Instead, they chose to militarily invade a country.
The US took a dim view of it if I recall correctly.
When the defence of the heartland is threatened, notions such as sovereignty tend to take a back seat and invasion is very much on the table.
Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular. Hence the insistence that NATO membership is a red line.
How true is this since circa 1950, though? There are very few plausible scenarios involving a ground invasion and most of Russia is exposed to modern weaponry so it’s not like the primary threat is a bunch of B-52s flying out of Kyiv. It’s true that distance affects reaction times but they already have similar range borders & submarine launches substantially affected that, too.
At the end of the day, it appears Russia wants eastern Europe politically.
Until they can accept it as independent and sovereign, any protestations about military systems are smoke screens for their general unhappiness with an independent eastern Europe.
Russia sponsored and equiped Ukrainian dissidents to seize eastern Ukraine.
The US embargoed Cuba after the failed invasion.
Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and has now invaded Ukraine.
The first step was the same, but the US military didn't invade Cuba when it failed.
But sure, all that NATO name dropping surely is the reason for this aggression on a sovereign nation.
NATO as a threat is very real, though. It is enough.
All that went out of the window now.
It's like the geopolitical equivalent of shouting aggressively at a bear from a mile away vs just being between her and her cubs.
Ukrainian-Russian border is where Russia is at its most vulnerable, hence why the reaction to projected NATO encroachment is so violent.
You seem to want to rewrite your position on this.
From day 1 of the invasion it seemed clear to me that their goal was not to occupy all of Ukraine but to "break" it and potentially to cleave off strategic pieces in negotiations and extract a promise of neutrality/demilitarization.
Because I think the real reason why this all happened A) matters rather a lot B) is being swept under the carpet.
NATO's (lack of) respect for Libya's sovereignty can perhaps explain why Putin didnt think that it would have much respect for Russia's sovereignty which is, in turn, why he didnt have much respect for Ukraine's.
No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.
The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant, but you seem to be a bit stuck on that subject as though there is a possible justification to be found there.
> No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.
There was no conceivable way in which Ukraine was a threat to Russia. Full stop.
It wasnt like he was unclear that pursuing NATO membership => invasion either.
>The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant
This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...
Are you from Russia?
> This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...
No, the way to make sure this won't happen again is to make sure that little tinpot dictators don't get their hands on nuclear arms. Apropos, North Korea...
Putin: No plan for Ukrainian invasion. Western hysteria.
Fairly plan liar, that is…
Btw the Russian troop “pullout” was a fabricated lie. It was a few tanks sent back needing mechanical repairs from heavy drills. So it appears we’ve already established you’re falling for Russian state propaganda talking points that turned out to be false.
Unless you are in Ukraine, you cannot do anything to influence the outcome of this war.
Because he thinks this is how he stays in power. He set up this whole situation with a lot of optimism about Ukraine capitulating, or getting some concessions, and it didn't work out. Now he's attacking because he doesn't want to look weak by withdrawing the buildup. That might lead to him losing power, in his mind.
Or he's insane. The above is the only rational explanation I can think of.
You are right though, it's early still and who knows what will happen.
Now he's making little progress with overthrowing the Ukrainian government and suffering economic damage on top. It's only a matter of time.
Beside that, however consider the big picture: ALL today's Govs. benefit from this war:
- all face social unrest for the push toward Green New Deal, for the impoverishment off the middle class etc, a war silence such unrest and justify all issue "they are due to the war";
- USA that have largely lost influence in EU, especially after brexit, now do have a deep influence again;
- China, now the sole reliable Russian partner can elicit far more military tech from Russia and far more cheap and abundant natural resources, probably to a point to overpower the USA in few years;
- Putin secure more years to came winning a war.
Who loose? ALL the people, as always.
IMVHO Russia took the entire Ukraine and no one really do anything, perhaps in the next few years also a Baltic "republic". While EU Gov thunder against Russia they agree for more natural resources supplies, stating the contrary to keep energy price sky-high to push the Green New Deal and the world slowly evolve toward a new cold war alike situation. The BIG risk is China: having Russia in it's quiver it can really start a world war likely for some South American country, while India face more and more internal and local unrest favoring a dangerous local conflict. But that part so far is more fantasy than reality.
user: kkfx
created: 20 hours ago
karma: 4
Knowing their enemies does not means being able "to do something, to fight" but at least avoid being part of their gambling against our own interest.
Time ago I intervene with the same line, and got similar level of criticism, when GitHub start to appear what it is today, without at that time GitLab/sr.ht etc stating that the old series of SFnet, Savannah, FreshMet etc being just single entities doing more or less the same thing, just hosting code they are useful and not harmful while converge all toward a central platform that not only aim to be The One but also offer things to tie devs to itself is actually more harmful than good. Again less time ago when GitHub was bought by Microsoft and many cray in tear "I'll go to $someoneElse" and I observe that ditching a proprietary service for another is a nonsense.
Essentially my point is pushing who read my comments to reason "about the big picture" instead of drive by emotions and propaganda/sheep effect of that time. Unfortunately while some agree many seems to reject even the idea.
Oh, about spewing CO₂ and Green New Deal: I totally agree that pollution (so not only CO₂) is really harmful BUT the actual green new deal is green in the dollar-green sense, in the stereotypical colors of chemical poisons spewed by rusty barrels we see on comics/movies etc NOT in the sense of green grass of the spring. And I still observe the same criticism pattern, even when I add that I'm actually invested in a new home, a p.v. system etc and I'm happy of that...
This is a very odd choice of words and it’s certainly not the case that these are unrelated given Russia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuel sales. It’s very easy to imagine an EU-wide campaign to stick it to Putin by electrifying your HVAC and only buying EVs, for example, or a push to electrify the remaining rail lines so the transportation grid can be powered by renewables.
- Czech Ministry of Defense
The west is doing much more, at significant risk of escalation, than could have been reasonably hoped.
I would not have dared hope that all Europe would brave openly shipping weapons to kill Russian soldiers. But even Germany has found this courage.
If a bit late, but better late than never.
Not least Moscow's elite. German relations with Russia were once much better than most of the rest of Europe's - Russia does not view Germany as simple US puppet.
It is not reasonable to seek just-so geostategic facts, or single points of leverage, that explain societies of millions and the policies of their governments.
Understanding something of German politics can elucidate origins of German policy.
"Guilt" is a lazy reduction on my part. It references a sense of special German responsibility to never cause or encourage war, especially in Europe - the zeitgeist of West Germany's post-war generation. A recent DW opinion piece summarizes the received wisdom:
"There are good reasons why Germany has adopted the stance of, on principle, not supplying weapons to war or crisis zones – especially when it concerns a region that, within living memory, has suffered the consequences of a terrible German occupation. The danger of further fueling conflicts if more and more weapons are supplied is not one that can be dismissed out of hand." [0]
Knowing so well the sins of their parents, this generation has sought a path to be proud, little-g germans - replacing nationalism and patriotism with moral vocation. Consider this recollection, from an Austrian born in 1947: https://youtu.be/Qmp--Z8pmTU?t=103.
There is so much more to consider: I haven't escaped lazy shorthand. For instance, the German arms industry is fourth largest in the world. Hypocrisy, monitoring, and debate abound [1]. Analyzing a democratic polity oft feels like a fractal fool's errand.
Certainly, all this is not to say Russia has not influenced Germany's foreign, security, and arms exports policies. The described German sense of responsibility includes a particular sensitivity with regard to criticism of Russia, and an eagerness for economic engagement. Russia sacrificed far more to defeat the Nazis than all other allies combined, and Germans know this well, especially Ossies (not so the rest of the West - often a particular grievance of ordinary Russians).
The LNG vulnerability is doubtless a salient consideration in German policy decisions. But they've conclusively demonstrated the other factors have more weight, and they are willing to pay a price for principle. Indeed, previous to the policy change they were paying a different price - the opprobrium and frustration of allies and America - on the grounds on principle.
0 - https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-ukraine-crisis-germany-needs-a...
1 - https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/20...
In so many words, you have not, at all.
You admit as much yourself. "The German arms industry is fourth largest in the world." But when it comes to Russia, supposedly they now purport it's because they feel the guilt of the WW2 atrocities, that's the reason behind their actions.
Ok then, turn off the gas imports. "No we absolutely can't do that. But it's not about the gas, we assure you. Ex-Chancellor Schroder being Chairman of the Board of Rosneft is just a funny coincidence."
So the answer to my question is no.
Even Germany is sending munitions now
EDIT: try http://12ft.io/https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/26/r...
Good connectivity is determined by your ISP knowing what best routes to take to a certain IP, and the DNS is not aware of this BGP layer. Announcing your subnet from several points of presence enables client ISPs to choose the best route for them (cheapest/fastest), but resolving to different IPs depending on client "location" may provide inconsistent results that don't go over the fastest route.
That said - Ukranians have not (yet) lost all the ground. Russian forces in a large country are quite vulnerable to attack from all sides if it can be sustained and coordinated.
The Eastern 1/2 of Ukraine is largely still open even as the W. is partly contended - this gives a lot of space for Ukraine to manoeuvre and regroup - and most notably - to be reinforced from Poland.
Currently, the Russians are paying a heavy, daily price that is completely unsustainable to them.
The question becomes - can they get into a 'grinding' position in which they are wearing down the Ukranians, while at the same time minimising their costs and loses? It's hard to say.
West is also taking note and the frankly heroic and effective acts of Ukranians is encouraging giving them more gear. The Javelins etc. are being used very effectively, I mean, the US can do serious damage to the Russians just by handing off Javelins and not even putting their own soldiers at risk? That's the 'deal of the century'.
As the war prolongs, then more complicated equipment that requires even a bit of training can be deployed to similar effect.
Specifically, artillery is vulnerable to radar and rapid counter attack, so long as the equipment is there. If the Ukranians have access to this kind of tech (there is some talk of it), they can use it to disable or at least degrade any kind of 'siege artillery'. Russians have a limited supply of rockets, and they can't use their close air support (Stingers), and even fast air is a bit risky.
Ukraine is also a big country. Chechnya is 1.5M people and that was a painful mess. Ukraine is 45M people with support from the West, that's a different range of calculation.
Air superiority doesn't seem to be clear cut currently, and that's before you factor in anti-aircraft weapons being part of the shipped equipment.
Not if the enemy can get and maintain air superiority. Air superiority closes virtually all room for manoeuvering.
Ukraine's fixed assets were wiped out on day 1, but they have mobile units which I believe are still effective.
The lack of use of a lot of air power by Russia in the last few days I believe is due to the fact that on day 1 they had serious damages and it's just very costly out there.
Mobile AA units can operate independently but I don' know if it's Russian or Western gear, if Russian, it may be hard to replace. Because even free gear from the West right now would require training.
But - there is an unlimited supply of Stingers from the West, and those will do serious damage to all helicopters, and seriously risk close air, and also hugely risk transport aircraft on approach.
Ukraine can plop a 19 year old anywhere within 3-4K of an aerodrome and pluck transports out of the sky with impunity. So far they've knocked out 2 transports which is very expensive to the Russians.
On day 1 they tried to land airborne using 30 transport helicopters, 3 were taken out, that's devastating. Russians had to follow up with 100 helicopter transport landing at once, to land 1000 soldiers, that is a huge portion of their rotary wing assault fleet for one single operation. Very risky.
That said, the Russians are sill flying missions.
But yes, it's a huge factor.
Ukraine's ability to consistently deny Air Support is 100% a decisive issue. Without it, they'd be getting demolished by Russian Airships, much like Iraqi Army facing the US.
'Air Power' is helpful against known targets, in a fight, bombing strategic things like airfields. But even a few dozen migs running daily sorties can't keep 30 Million people down. They can just inflict some pain.
If Ukraine can keep a big plot of territory connected to Europe in it's hands, and conduct operations in occupied lands, it can win.
As of today it's looking bad for Russians. They are not making progress and now the West has been mobilised against them.
Spetsnaz airborne were routed day 1. Was it really just Ukrainians? Or did they have some proxy help?
>Despite its impressive resistance, the city faced the prospect of imminent encirclement.
General mobilization is a huge factor here. Russian troops are fighting against people who have nothing left to lose. encirclement doesnt matter, when they enter the city they will lead with spetsnaz because if they don't... they will take tremendous losses. Russia hasn't even started to see the real resistance yet.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ukraine-asks-re...