Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 791 posts

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#151

Post by gamblor956 »

blast wrote: post #70
PaulHoule wrote: post #3

They are afraid of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system a very good technology that the Soviet Union developed which punches above its weight in situations like the Ukraine war because the mobile radars are hard to suppress with these methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen... I have seen a huge number of Buks in various conditions in video footage from the war, one of them wa…

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

The "stumped" is not actually in the article.

FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back from actually using much of it (by air or ground). This war could have been over the day it started if Russia had used maximal force, and the conservative approach their actually using maximizes risks and casualties.

And that's what has the experts confused: they can't figure out why Russia is going with this strategy, given the overwhelming technological and numerical superiority of the invasion force and their apparent willingness to accept casualties as the cost of conquering Ukraine.

It doesn't appear to be cost, because the invasion has "cost" Russia hundreds of billions.

It doesn't appear to be casualties/morale, because Russia has suffered 500+ casualties in 3 days (its worst losses since Afghanistan), and is still invading.

It doesn't appear to be doctrine, because their actions don't match what is known of Russian ground or air doctrine.

And so experts are trying to figure out what calculus went into Russia's invasion planning (assuming there was a coherent strategy going in, which is not a given in the post-Trump world).

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#152

Post by 015a »

criddell wrote: post #63
boc wrote: post #50

I think we need to consider the possibility that much of the Russian army only existed on paper, and that the true strength was overinflated by trickling up good news only throughout all ranks of the military.[1] Readiness was overstated. Equipment was overstated. Training was for parades, not combat. Everyone in the Russian military had assumed they'd never actually fight a real war, so they could grift and sell rat…

> the true strength was overinflated by trickling up When I watched HBO's excellent Chernobyl that was one of the recurring themes. Everybody is lying to their superiors and nobody wants to hear bad news and they suffer because if it. I assumed that was probably exaggerated for the sake of drama but maybe it was actually understated?

Even this recent video, which presents a bad look for their leadership, they were alright with it being public; it must be the best case, and it subtly presents a leadership structure within the Russian government that is both disorganized, and systemically fearful of Putin.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucEs0nBuowE

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#153

Post by milesdyson_phd »

whimsicalism wrote: post #65
milesdyson_phd wrote: post #56

One thing I don't understand is Russia's opening missile salvos, they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force. I guess you could theorize they didn't want to destroy that infrastructure in the event that the Ukrainian government rolled over, but that seems to have been a risky bet that is currently playing out.

> they barely even struck at the heart of the Ukrainian Air Force Keep in mind that media reports and reports from the Ukrainian military are designed to minimize losses and boost morale. I've seen quite a few videos of Ukrainian planes destroyed on the tarmac and there isn't evidence for a significant Ukrainian air presence anymore.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were unscathed.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#154

Post by thg »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #52
boc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese surrender in WWII due to sustained strategic bombing of civilian cities without a single troop landing in mainland Japan is a clear contradiction to this take.

If Russia nuked Ukraine they might win the war on Ukraine, sure. Japan didn't even quit until there were two though. Would they have quit with no nukes and just firebombing?

Japan didn't surrender because of anything the US did, but because Russia declared war on them (two days after Hiroshima and a day before Nagasaki).

The US may just as well have dropped 10 more nukes and it wouldn't have changed anything. The Japanese didn't care whether it took a 1.000 bombs to destroy a city or a single one. Even more so, since they didn't know anything about the radioactive fallout and long-term effects. To them, it was just a bigger bomb.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#155

Post by BitwiseFool »

HideousKojima wrote: post #67
micromacrofoot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine really doesn't want war, the odds are stacked against them and without significant outside ground troops they'll be devastated even if Russia is as incompetent as they currently appear. Killing aggressors is often used as an excuse for the aggressors to be more aggressive and Russia's army is large enough to replace that convoy a few times over without much of a sweat. Violence also helps back the idea that R…

>Violence also helps back the idea that Russia needs to be there to stop the violent nazis that state media has painted Ukrainians to be (goes without saying, this is completely fabricated). It definitely isn't "completely fabricated": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion The real problem is, who gives a shit if a small unit in the Ukrainian National Guard is made up of far right extremists? It's a purely i…

I can't help but think Putin's guise of "denazifying Ukraine" was a poorly understood attempt to gain some favor with those in Western societies that see themselves as fighting fascism and right-wing extremism.

As a westerner, I've definitely noticed my more left leaning friends agree with actions that seemingly contradict classical liberal ideals (free speech, free association) as long as such actions seem to be in service of fighting fascism and misinformation. Perhaps some propaganda strategists assumed that 'fighting nazis' was an acceptable parallel to how the United States claims it is defending freedom/democracy whenever it intervenes in some other country. It obviously didn't work.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#156

Post by MiroF »

watwut wrote: post #143
_pd19 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many mis-statements of fact here. > They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened. Very possible, but neither you nor me are in the position to know that. > Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not. For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians. The Holodomor was clearly a completely orthogonal…

Holodomor is relevant, ot orthogonal. I meant purgers, internal thing toward Russians. Oh, and yes, 2011 to 2015 is long time of escalations. The question is whether they will pull punches when ennemy don't give up.

> Holodomor is relevant, ot orthogonal. > I meant purgers, internal thing toward Russians.

Neither of those were covered on the TV. They are also from over half a century ago.

> 2011 to 2015 is long time of escalations.

But 2014 to 2022 isn't?

The idea that Russians care equally about the lives of Syrians and the lives of ethnic Russians & Ukrainians is fantasy. It's obviously false, even if Russians killed Russians in purges 60 years ago.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#157

Post by ed_balls »

blast wrote: post #70
PaulHoule wrote: post #3

They are afraid of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system a very good technology that the Soviet Union developed which punches above its weight in situations like the Ukraine war because the mobile radars are hard to suppress with these methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defen... I have seen a huge number of Buks in various conditions in video footage from the war, one of them wa…

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

Depends on what you mean by experts. The strategist I know said this is a political decision. They don't want to inflict too much damage to avoid bloody insurrections in the future. Russian aircrafts are not that precise. What is more, UA army received manpads. It's not worth it.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#159

Post by gpm »

anramon wrote: post #92
blast wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

Right now an "expert" is whoever says something that is aligned with media retoric.

The expert they are quoting is a pretty well known figure, who has been saying lots of things often not aligned with media retoric.

To borrow his twitter bio as an introduction

> PhD student @warstudies (Department of War Studies at Kings College). Senior Fellow @FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute). Previously @USMC (US Marine Corp), @ColumbiaSIPA (Columbia School of International and Public Affairs), @CentreAST (Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies), and @AlfaFellowship. Focused on Russian defense policy.

To imply that they're just pulling in random people is flat out wrong. This is a person who has been studying Russia from a military standpoint for many years.

Post reply on HN