It's also possible there are new, not-yet-publicly-disclosed anti-aircraft countermeasures/weapons. So, after seeing hints of greater-than-expected losses from unknown causes, the Russians may be wary of putting more aircraft at risk until more is understood, & tactics adapt.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. The goal is not to shoot aircraft down, the goal is to prevent them from coming in the first place. Wouldn't you want to disclose the hell out of your extremely effective anti-aircraft weapons so you don't have to use them as much? Obviously not the positioning or numbers but just that you have them...
What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
251–260 of 791 posts
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days. Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.
Respectfully, the indiscriminate killing we have seen so far - while awful - does not even remotely hold a candle to what happened in Syria. They are clearly pulling their punches, likely because of the ethnic/racial dynamics of this conflict.
The goals are different. It's not like they are trying to make Syria part of the new Russian Empire.
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: t…
Conservative western intelligence estimates actually have this number at over 2000 this morning (3/1) [0]. They are losing whole battalions by the day, and the real nasty urban warfare hasn't even begun. It's an absolute bloodbath that would never even conceivably be tolerated for a moment by any other modern military on earth.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always wonder how they developed things like that in the 70s. Right now I don’t know a single engineer that could even know how to begin to develop a system like that. I feel like most of them would try and throw a neural net at the problem and call it a day.
I'm guessing most mechanical and/or ECE programs still teach "control systems", and that might be where one begins, along with some "signals and systems" and RF classes. I suspect that the engineers you know are more computer science "engineers" than people who went through a traditional engineering core.
The ABET mechanical and electrical engineering curricula combined would give you all the skills a team needed (perhaps with the aid of a physicist and chemist or two) to build this system.
That we have dissolved the word "engineer" to mean "ad salesman at scale" doesn't mean the traditional engineers aren't out there.
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without minimizing the awfulness of this invasion and the fact that it must be condemned, it is not nearly as brutal as Russian operations in Chechnya and Syria or the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq, likely because Ukranians are not nearly as much of a racial or cultural other to Russians as Chechens or Syrians. The greater ability of Ukrainians to gain coverage in both traditional and social media may also be a f…
Thank you for articulating this better than I could. You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". That said, I think much of Russia's restraint is due to their end goal. Ukraine's Russian backed president was outted in a coup back in 2014. The new pro West leadership decided to go dancing with John McCain. This entire conflict could of been a…
When was eastern Ukraine (ethnic Russians) going to be voting on leaving Ukraine?
Anyone wondering how Putin got into power may want to research how the New York bankers and Clintons tried to install Boris Berezovsky in Russia.
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: t…
I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions. They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, they just don't want NATO to be able to invade them by land. I'd you assume this is true, what they are doing make complete sense.
That's very reasonable.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071766987/u-s-russia-dicuss-...
> Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."
That was, quite clearly, a lie, as they'd already massed 100,000 troops near Ukraine.
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You had a CNN commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata, actually. > It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians…
> Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Russia's only argument is that "someday maybe, perhaps, it could possibly happen".
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a kind of Catch 22 situation with how to deliver those MIG-29s: If a Polish pilot flies it to Ukraine, Russia will consider that an act of war, and possibly start bombarding Poland. If Ukrainian pilot comes to Poland and takes off from a Polish airport then again: that is an act of war. The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send t…
Ukraine just yesterday flew a MIG-29 back from Romania, unarmed and escorted to the border by Romania jets/from the border by armed Ukranian jets. No-one seems concerned that that's an act of war.
https://news.yahoo.com/no-eu-countries-aren-t-233404478.html
Also, that one jet that flew from Romania was flying BACK, because it already belonged to Ukraine, just had an emergency landing in Romania for some unknown reason: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44514/su-27-returning-...
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#259I'd have thought that Russia would have air superiority by now, but it seems they don't. Ukraine doesn't use its air power wisely, because I'd think that 60km long convoy would be a juicy target, ripe for the picking. The Russians probably have Buks and S-400 SAMs lined up all over the place to protect the convoy.
Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Historically combatants have treated their opponents differently based on race and existing cultural attitudes Huh? when have that ever been true? European religious wars have been huge bloodsheds, communist regimes routinely genocided their own (often quite homogenous) populations, Lebanon's civil war saw neighbors shooting at each other. The truth of the matter is : when people want to fight, they will find someth…
It's been true literally since written records of conflict have been kept. Look at the Punic Wars vs. the Peloponnesian War for example. Look at the Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s. Even in European history it is true. Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII. (Edit: or as a sibling comment notes, the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts).…
Not sure how this supports your thesis. Are you trying to say that the punic wars was more devastating/brutal than the Peloponnesian because the first had people of different races fighting while the second had only Greeks fighting amongst themselves ? there are several problems with this :
- We have no estimates of the casualties on both sides of both conflicts, Wikipedia only has an estimate of one side of the Peloponnesian, and it's only the military casualties.
- In the Peloponnesian war, Sparta actually allied with the Persians. They were entirely OK with people of different races murdering their fellow Greeks, I think they had zero problems murdering their own race too. (and burning the whole city if it came to that, but it didn't, but that doesn't really mean Spartans were softer because their enemies were Greek, it just means the Athenians surrendered quicker and didn't try again, unlike the Punics)
>Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s
This is really comparing apples and oranges, those two wars are about 5-6 centuries apart, whatever you're comparing as proxy for 'brutal' or 'destructive' is very much confounded by technological advances in warfare.
>Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII.
I don't understand what this is trying to say. Did English attitudes toward Germany differ between WW1 and WW2 (besides the trivial differences explainable by the change in geopolitical atmosphere and warfare style)? how much of that is both parties seeing each other as different or similar races?
>the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts
I never said that race-based dehumanization isn't brutally effective and leads to astonishing results when it could be used, in fact I placed it at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to dehumanization algorithms.
What I'm denying here is the claim that this efficiency of dehumanization can't be achieved using other methods or combination of methods, I'm asserting that it can, just with more effort/propaganda. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case in this specific Ukraine-Russia conflict, I don't trust the hose of (dis)information on this conflict the internet spews every day anyway, so I don't really have a strong opinion on anything in it besides the most naked facts.
All what I'm disputing is the claim
>Wars with same-race combatants are, always or most of the time or on average, less brutal than wars with different races fighting
I'm saying that this is false and reductive, Religion in particular is a very strong counterexample. Communism-style genocides is another.