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

321–330 of 791 posts

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

#321

Post by jwozn »

999900000999 wrote: post #110
platinumrad wrote: post #77

Earlier 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…

I'm not sure if the statement of "we didn't keep trying to expand NATO" is correct. Most of the expansion was a result of requests from former USSR states to join, which was then supported by the US and accepted by other member states. I don't think it's correct to we were trying, when it's more likely that former USSR states were trying to pull NATO toward them.

I also am not sure that war would be avoided if NATO didn't expand. Putin and Russia have made statements that suggest a desire to grow their influence over former USSR countries, and those countries resisted by joining NATO or ousting Russian backed leadership.

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

#322

Post by unnouinceput »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #296
gamblor956 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. We must define "efforts" or "avoid" very differently. At the very start of the invasion, there was a video of Russian tanks deliberately trying to run over civilian cars.

The video I think you are referring to shows the tank swerving to avoid incoming fire and (presumably accidentally) running over a civilian car.

It was actually an accident. The tank was Ukrainian and the driver had very poor visibility, hence the swerve on top of civilian (70+ senior actually, that miraculously didn't got any injury) car.

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

#323

Post by causi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #242
speeder wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't understand why people just don't believe Russia is being literal with their intentions They are. You are just listening to the wrong articulation of their intentions. > They said multiple times they don't want Ukraine, They have said multiple times that they do want Ukraine, view it's separation from Russia as a crime against Russia and Russians committed by those in the past with control over Russia in the…

* Russian state media even released than silently deleted a premature victory announcement for the current invasion declaring the establishment of a new union state of all the Russias (Russia [Great Russia], Ukraine [Little Russia]Do you have more information about this?

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

#324

Post by astrange »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #155
HideousKojima wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Russians don't know what Nazis are. They just know some people called Nazis attacked them in WW2, so denazifying = stopping enemies of Russia.

It isn't talking about the Azov battalion or anything; that's an uncalled-for steelmanning because everyone is free associating things they read about in the news.

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

#325

Post by glitchc »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #161
blippage wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> convivial weapon I had a quick chuckle at that. It reminds me of an old joke: a bullet has your name on it, a hand grenade is addressed "to whom it may concern", and a mortar shell is posted general delivery.

What does that make nuclear warfare, a comprehensive spam campaign?

An influencer’s Twitter feed.

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

#326

Post by kaesar14 »

helloworld11 wrote: post #232
gamblor956 wrote: post #151

Earlier 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…

>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). Because there was a much greater absence of incoherent strategies by political and military leaders in the world prior to Trump being president of one specific country? No real fan of the man but the need to cram in a Trump-hate re…

Yeah, it's clearly the Trump Presidency that led to Operation Barbarossa.

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

#327

Post by csee »

tguvot wrote: post #320
csee wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it might be an end game in terms of a false flag to justify such a bombing in Russian propaganda. They can't just outright go for the bombing without such a justification.

it's not reported in russian media as it will contradict narrative - successful campaign to support armies of LNR/DNS to liberate their republics. Nothing else is reported in media

What about the attempts on Kyiv and shelling of Lviv? Didn't Putin say that he wanted to "denazify" all of Ukraine in his opening declaration, not just LNR/DNS?

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

#328

Post by older »

988747 wrote: post #298
older wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All EU countries started supplying arms to Ukraine. If it is a plane or anti-tank missile makes no difference.

Sending supplies is just business, no different from selling food. Allowing to use the military infrastructure, such as an airport is an act of war. It might seem weird to you, but that's how Russia would paint it.

Russia does not need to paint anything. When they need any excuse they just fabricate some more lies. As we've seen many times already.

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

#329

Post by [deleted] »

speeder wrote: post #230
gamblor956 wrote: post #151

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

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

#330

Post by vkou »

nomel wrote: post #104
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.

I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. There's an active war. If history has taught us anything, psyops is as sure as death, in war.

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent.

It's not a strong possibility, it's a 100% guarantee.

Aside from big, trivially disproven announcements ("This side now controls such and such city"), you're not going to see an accurate picture of literally anything in this conflict until months, if not years after the fact, when historians will pour over, and fit together first-hand accounts and records.

In the meantime, parts of the picture may be accurate, but nobody here has any idea which parts are true, which are propaganda, or what particular purpose that propaganda serves.

Post reply on HN