Hacker News Reader

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...

> ... 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.

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...

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.

Please post useful information rather than blanket 'nope'. If there are so many, name the top 3 (say) or I can't learn anything.

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-...

It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance. To suppress that resistance would require so much money (and soldiers) that it would probably bankrupt Russia. At the same time, the extraction of natural resources is threatened in Russia itself, because they use western financing and tech to do that, western companies are now leaving and it is not so easy to switch to China.

That is one strategic mistake Russia made. They are economically at the mercy of China, if they somehow manage to circumvent their economy being destroyed with China's help. China will squeeze them hard. China is much more subtle when it comes to taking over, using soft power, letting the money talk. Just take a look at Africa and other places of a new silk road.

Russia is only 4% of China's trade. Couple of sanctions from west can easily make very very bad deal for China.

> It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance

I've always heard a lot of talk about that (even before the war), especially by Western leaders trying to puff up the effectiveness of their support, but is that resistance actually materializing in Russian-controlled areas?

I would estimate that they made even the Russian-controlled areas much less stable. So if their plan was to extract natural resources... they seem to have torpedoed their own plan? I don't know, it does not make any sense to me. But honestly, the whole invasion does not make any sense. I fail to see any "rational" (however immoral) explanation that would seem believable and I tend to view it in terms of ideology gone haywire, perceived grievances, humiliation and revenge... those models seem to fit better than "rational" models like access to natural resources, protection from NATO etc. Just my $0.02.

Most of the fighting is happening in Eastern Ukraine that was until recently fairly pro-Russia. But you can only bomb hospitals and shell cities for so long before the population starts to hate you, even if you speak the same language.

I hope Ukraine does not lose its will to fight, so that they do never allow another land grab by Russia in the east. Russia has already spent lots of resources on this, not to speak of the many lives they ended, but in the long run, if they manage to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war. I hope that this is somehow unrealistic and that the Ukrainians do not stop until they got back all their territory. However the price is probably high in blood.

> If [Russia] manage[s] to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war.

IIRC, that's currently the expected best case outcome of this. The Ukrainians are fighting with everything they have, but the Russian Army is just plain bigger and better equipped, so they've only bee able to slow it down, not meet it and defeat it. I don't really see that changing unless the West stops tiptoeing around (at least) and offers more than halfhearted military support to Ukraine.

To be clear: the West's support is less halfharted than it was before the war, but it's still halfharted (e.g. the nonsense with the Polish jets, only supplying "weapons of a defensive character," etc.).

With climate change coming, and only so much land usable for things like wind and solar -- which is to say, optimal for wind and solar -- yea, fights over land will be a thing. I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change.

Arguably, the Arab Spring was the first in these wars, since failed harvests and grain prices are what kicked off a lot of unrest to begin with.

"War, war never changes"

By the way, if you enjoyed "Arab Spring", you'll love season 2 [1] !

Or maybe there will be a remake, but with white actors [2] ?

[1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-the-inv...

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/food-price-inflation-eastern...

>I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change.

Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested.

There are many such studies, both inside and outside the defense industry. It's one of the more common predictions of the impacts of climate change. I think the IPCC includes it in their reports, which is probably the best starting place - the IPCC's job is to integrate research into one periodic report.

A Russian win would be formal secession of Crimea and Donbas to Russia, secure water supply to the Crimea and a puppet government for the rest. The government doesn't need to be internationally recognised, just beholden to Russia and act as the buffer to the West that Putin wants.

If he takes Kyiv and deposes the current government, getting a treaty that achieves that probably won't be that hard. I don't know enough about Ukrainian demographics to know if a puppet government could be stable without a huge Russian military presence. If the latter is needed then it would probably count as a failure.

They will need an impressive military presence to prop up a sham government. Anyone who wants to fund partisans will have ample opportunities to do so.

And there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken, it's not a video game. In fact, western Ukraine is so terrifically safe I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of government operations are being run from there already.

> there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken

I agree. But they don't need to give up for a puppet government to be in place. They need to lose control of the military and communications infrastructure. If the government is far to the west or in exile, it's hard to see how they would maintain control.

And I also agree that a new government would need a substantial Russian military presence. It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties. It's likely that Putin calculated that they'd only get problems with western Ukraine. That's likely been badly misjudged.

> It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties.

It'd be really interesting to get some polling data on those people. It's hard to imagine that they don't feel betrayed. After all, the russian speaking population has been subjected to the harshest and most violent portions of this conflict, albeit incidentally.

Russia's list of demands are demilitarization, a formal declaration to not join NATO and the two republics in the east of Ukraine. You will hardly ever find a mention of these demands in the media because it's considered advantageous to lead people to the conclusion that Russia wants to annex or occupy Ukraine indefinitely -- which they probably don't want to do.

Russia (or Putin to be precise) says that Ukraine is a fake nation. The goal was to unify Ukraine and Belarus as one country. The fact that Russia's demands are somewhat "smaller" now is just because their war didn't go as smooth as they wish it would.

The more they grab though, the stronger their position at the international negotiation table, to achieve what you describe as their goal. "You want us to withdraw from everywhere?? Nah ... The maximum we are willing to go for is withdrawing to the 'new republics'." And then some inconsequent negotiations may grant them that, thinking "Well it will be just as before then." And by agreeing to such a bad result to stop the bloodshed, Putin has got what he originally wanted. Maybe that is his long term goal and the redt is show for the west. An act to spread as much horror and terror as possible.

> You will hardly ever find a mention of these demands in the media because it's considered advantageous to lead people to the conclusion that Russia wants to annex or occupy Ukraine indefinitely -- which they probably don't want to do.

You don't find them sometimes because Russia is extremely untrustworthy. Demilitarization just means it will be easier to annex Ukraine later. Recognizing the Donbas republics is nonsense as Putin's men have already admitted they plan to annex them afterwards.

There's a reason why you hardly ever find a mention of Poland's attack on Germany in 1939[1]. It has something to do with the fact that it's not real.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler

> Demilitarization just means it will be easier to annex Ukraine later.

The other outcome is that Russia defeats Ukraine into unconditional surrender, and then demilitarizes it anyway.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

It is estimated that Russia performs 200 air raids a day - hence the relatively high number of aircraft shot down by the Ukrainians.

And to add some more perspective: Desert Storm started off with > 1000 sorties / day.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

> > 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.

> [...]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.

> 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.

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