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

Putin’s Worsening Problems

newlinesmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#41

Post by philwelch »

gruez wrote: post #31
crooked-v wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. In purely military terms, doing that would be almost the same as just having all that artillery sit around and do nothing while the Ukrainians execute major counter-offenses.

>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?

For the most part, yeah.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#42

Post by wolverine876 »

nomilk wrote: post #9
melling wrote: post #2

Hmmmm… I think people are overlooking the fact that Putin is willing to simply lay siege and use artillery to shell the Ukrainians into submission.

It's the horrible thought we don't want to think but it's a possibility. Question for military analysts: what is the counter to siege / artillery barrage? Guesses: 1. dig deep bunkers to survive the weeks/months of artillery, 2. organise ambushes on the artillery (taking out a few pieces per day will add up over months), or 3. use flying forces (e.g. Bayraktar TB2). Would these counters work; are they likely to occur…

Ignore them, as much as possible. They are mostly ineffective against insurgencies (unless you kill everyone, which the Russians probably won't do). The only option to defeat insurgencies is with ground forces.

> Another idea is taking out the transports that resupply artillery ammo

Definitely part of insurgent warfare - attack the weak spots. I don't have it in front of me, but one military expert said the soft underbelly of a seige is the outer ring - the outside of the siege.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#43

Post by wolverine876 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #16
smitty1e wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what effect? So that Ukraine can join Vietnam and Afghanistan and form a "Do Not Do This" triefecta for military history? If this were the only concern, should we just tacitly support Ukraine until Russia implodes? There are nuclear weapons rattling around in there. Politics is all about managing uncertainties. I should think a calmer, less dictatorial outcome would be everyone's interests. Or is it? Because Ukrai…

If anything, this has made me doubt that Taiwan's eventual takeover will be via a hot war. The country is smaller, but its military is actually slightly larger than Ukraine's was, and they have better technology than the Ukrainians did. And the Chinese would need to cross 180km of water to get there. And the only point of taking over Taiwan is for what's already there -- the people, the technology. Shelling it would…

Everyone fights the last war. An attack on Taiwan would be nothing like Ukraine, and if it happens, everyone will readjust their expectations for the next war - and be surprised again.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#44

Post by philwelch »

wolverine876 wrote: post #40
gruez wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?

Many experts do think they were of little military value. Remember that WWII was the first time humans could attack cities far behind enemy lines. Bombers were revolutionary, but nobody knew how to use them effectively. They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC). Modern precision guided munitions work much…

> They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC).

And when you account for all of those bombs, and the bombers that carried them, and the fighter escorts for those bombers, and the ammunition for the fighters and turret gunners, and the aircraft losses to enemy fire, and the loss of manpower in air crews, and all of the logistics to maintain these bombing campaigns, you are paying very heavy costs for the damage you’re ultimately inflicting.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#45

Post by macrolocal »

wolverine876 wrote: post #34
empressplay wrote: post #29

I get the need for flag waving but Kyiv is at best a distraction. The real aim here was to create and occupy a land bridge between Donbass and Crimea and that seems to be pretty much done. If I was to bet on anything, I'd expect Russia to gradually withdraw to the south and then occupy it, digging in for a long negotiation process.

> Kyiv is at best a distraction What is that based on? Factually, Russia has invested a lot to conquer Kyiv and Ukraine; the rest is speculation. They may settle for less, but that is not evidence that it was intended as a distraction. (Also, it is no 'distraction' to the people of Kyiv and Ukraine.)

To bolster empressplay's comment, I read on iz.ru before the invasion that Putin's aims would be (a) to "rescue" Donbass and establish a land bridge to Crimea, and (b) to destabilize NATO. Pundits there also said that claims he intended to attack Kiev were western propaganda. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#46

Post by mediumsmart »

gruez wrote: post #31
crooked-v wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. In purely military terms, doing that would be almost the same as just having all that artillery sit around and do nothing while the Ukrainians execute major counter-offenses.

>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?

24 July 1943 Hamburg 30.000 died in that one night. Firebombing.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#47

Post by ShivShankaran »

crooked-v wrote: post #10
andrewclunn wrote: post #4

If the Ukrainians are allowed to protest, then Russia is fighting this while trying to minimize overt civilian casualties (most likely to avoid video of such acts becoming galvanizing propaganda tools against them). If things go poorly, then what? If Russia then starts fighting to destroy rather than conquer Ukraine intact, then it's a whole different story. This piece reads of wishful thinking.

I find it less likely that Russia is trying to minimize civilian casualties, and more likely that their occupying forces just don't have the numbers or cohesion to do anything about the protests without getting picked off piecemeal.

>I find it less likely that Russia is trying to minimize civilian casualties

A significant population of east Ukraine has family in Russia. This is like New York invading New Jersey. Ridiculous and terrible but they are aware that their family and friends live there.

There are hundreds of videos of Ukrainian civilians trying to climb aboard moving Russian convoys and blocking their paths and knocking out their mirrors and the Russians doing their best to ignore it.

Would it have been possible for Iraqis/Afghans/Syrians to do this to the US army?

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#48

Post by philwelch »

nomilk wrote: post #9
melling wrote: post #2

Hmmmm… I think people are overlooking the fact that Putin is willing to simply lay siege and use artillery to shell the Ukrainians into submission.

It's the horrible thought we don't want to think but it's a possibility. Question for military analysts: what is the counter to siege / artillery barrage? Guesses: 1. dig deep bunkers to survive the weeks/months of artillery, 2. organise ambushes on the artillery (taking out a few pieces per day will add up over months), or 3. use flying forces (e.g. Bayraktar TB2). Would these counters work; are they likely to occur…

If you have your own artillery and the right radar/targeting equipment, counterbattery fire. The counter to counterbattery fire is to use self-propelled artillery and “shoot and scoot”, but the muddy conditions in Ukraine might complicate the scooting aspect.

Russian doctrine dubs artillery the “god of war” and they have more artillery than Ukraine, but Western radar and targeting might make Ukraine’s artillery more precise. Hard to tell. Would have been nice to set Ukraine up with that stuff before the invasion.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#49

Post by mindslight »

gruez wrote: post #32
rasengan0 wrote: post #24

To reduce the level of rando mass murder by Putin from long range positions: Stand with Ukraine: paraphrasing HR: "Medium range air defense and shore to ship missiles ..." https://youtu.be/MDpTACez5cY?t=473

No fly zone seems like an great way of escalating the conflict, with a nuclear power no less.

"No fly zone" doesn't have a side effect of escalation, its entire substance is nothing but escalation. I think people have some rose tinted view of no fly zones as some objective neutral declaration, but that's basically an artifact of how they have been used to market what was essentially heavy US involvement in other wars. Instead of saying "no fly zone", saying "US jets should attack Russian jets" makes for a more honest description.

The real humanitarian/strategic answer would be to create a UN-sanctioned peacekeeping zone in the western part of the country, backed up by US/NATO forces. This mirrors the WWII style where as soon as Russia invaded the eastern half of Ukraine, NATO would have invaded the west, but paying respect to our modern notion of borders. That NATO has not done this is likely surprising to Putin, since he's basically operating from the old mindset of fighting a WWII style war complete with an appalling contempt for human life.

Re: Putin’s Worsening Problems

#50

Post by Exmoor »

melling wrote: post #2

Hmmmm… I think people are overlooking the fact that Putin is willing to simply lay siege and use artillery to shell the Ukrainians into submission.

You would hope that the Russians, more than anyone, would realize how much resistance a city under siege can put up given that their most lauded military accomplishment is being on the opposite end of that equation in Stalingrad.
Post reply on HN