Most ways of conducting urban warfare bode very ill for the population. The article seems to conclude they'll use a prolonged siege and artillery/rockets approach, and contrasts with the Western approach which is large-scale aerial bombardment.
Precisely, World War II urban warfare is over romanticized in retrospect. It was apparently gruesome. High attrition, inhuman conditions, really nothing for the people on the ground fighting or defending or just living neutrally.
Any "gains" fall to the brass, the people who would likely never see real fighting, but readily order battalions of men to "take" a town or city to play the probabilities game of death with the objective of "winning" the objective.
There's no need to go as far back as WW2, where the aerial bombardment, targeting, and radar/counter-radar technology was instrumental to the war, but is still thought of as rather primitive. Even with incredibly advanced technology and adaptations to tactics, the Western approach's effect on urban centers today is still arguably the worst of all, comparatively. US allies in the middle east commonly inflict high civilian casualties, but also, from the article itself:
> In 2004 fighting between American forces and insurgents in Fallujah, in Iraq, damaged or destroyed 70% of the city’s buildings. When a coalition including Iraq, America and others liberated Mosul, another Iraqi city, from the Islamic State group in 2016-17, over 10,000 civilians were killed—around 3,200 of them by the coalition—and two-fifths of the civilian population had to flee. It was also lethal for those on the ground: Iraq’s army suffered 10,000 casualties.
I think it's indisputable that the Ukraine war and the 2003 Iraq war are/were completely unjust, and our feelings about the Ukraine war should guide our future policy about other supposedly "just" wars.
That was a strategic bombing campaign, and an anemic one by the standards of the later war. Also bad, but not properly urban warfare, and I think a case could be plausibly made that urban warfare is meaningfully worse.
Really? I won’t claim to have exhaustively surveyed it but it sure felt like it was widely recognized as a brutal ordeal with random sudden death never far away. Most of the “greatest generation” imagery was grounded in the idea of slogging through it anyways.
> World War II urban warfare is over romanticized in retrospect
At least for me WW II urban warfare is all but synonymous with the Battle for Stalingrad, which is arguably the nastiest battle in human history. Who is romanticising that?
I am not the OP but I had my view on this kind of changed by watching YouTube essay "Lies of Heroism – Redefining the Anti-War Film" [1]. Whey you think about movies like for example Enemy at the Gates, they show the gruesome reality of the battlefield, but it is usually interpreted in a way that makes the suffering feel meaningful, heroic. Contrast that with Come and See, where there is no heroism, no ultimate meaning of the suffering, just meaningless hellish nightmare.
Someone who is unlikely to die in the next hour needs to be making those strategic decisions though. What is the alternative? (besides simply not having wars anymore)
The clearest indicator is that Russia suffered major losses in the first Chechen war when they opted for a short siege of Grozny. The second Chechen war under Putin saw a longer siege with more shelling, more civilian deaths and minimal losses for the Russians. It’s unlikely they’ve forgotten the lesson.
To prevent their atrocities from being broadcast they’ll probably prioritise cutting the internet.
Media in Kyiv and other places have plenty of satellite communication and in normal wars more protection from shelling (the IDF for example will blow Gaza to hell, but they won't say hit the building Reuters are in)
Whether Russia cares about the bad PR it would cause by blowing up international media (including crews from places like CCTV) is another matter.
Yes, exactly, destroying Associated Press and Al-Jazeera offices and equipment (and endangering lives). And despite all the protestations about concrete evidence that it was a "Hamas cyber HQ", and all the claims that the corresponding evidence had been given to the US, there hasn't been any such evidence released publicly, and as far as we know, not even privately to the US (the US denied receiving such evidence when the claim was made).
These reports use unnamed sources, but there are reports that it was almost entirely a PR move to destroy large structures, and that decision makers weren't aware of the presence of Associated Press and Al-Jazeera until after the "knock" bombs were already hitting the roof (it's my understanding that these offices are prominently registered with the IDF in order to prevent such events). https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-idf-only-discov...
> However, he added, the IDF was aware that Hamas was winning the PR war in Jerusalem, in mixed Arab-Jewish cities in Israel and in Lebanon. Moreover, its rocket fire at Israel was escalating. Consequently, he said, both the politicians and senior army officers “were looking for a victory picture.”
> ...
> This source linked the strike on Al-Jalaa to an earlier attack on Hamas’ underground tunnel network, “which began well, but afterward it become clear that it hadn’t succeeded, so they were looking for something to give the public, some victory, even a small one. That’s why the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was so quick to release pictures and videos of before and after the attack on the building. The IDF didn’t understand the implications of this incident and released the pictures of the building’s ruins as a public relations victory.”
There’s no such thing as an unbiased news source. Al Jazeera is a prominent source for news about matters in the Middle East, and I want to read what they have to say, as do other HN users.
Constructive discourse requires differing perspectives on reality, many of which may be uncomfortable. For example, I can’t begin to understand the situation in Ukraine without also understanding how Russia is portraying the matter. While we can’t stop you from requesting censorship, the answer will always be “no.”
Al Jazeera is an excellent news source on Middle Eastern affairs, also its telling how you shifted the conversation to the source (this story has been confirmed by the AP and other sources as well) when your false claim about he IDF was proven wrong.
The IDF are war criminals, worse than the Russians
I think calling them 'excellent' is taking it a bit far. I'd view Al Jazeera as structurally similar to many other 'regime broadcasters', for example, the BBC. However, the regime they are broadcasting for is the Qatari dictatorship, which is marginally more liberal than the Saudi dictarship[0]. So there's actually a pretty big difference there: it's representing a state (in the broad sense), and unless you have some really biblical political opinions, it's not a state you have much in common with. Aside from the usual depravities (stoning, slavery, etc), the taliban were headquartered in Doha in recent years.
I also occasionally read AJ for a sort of 'third opinion', but I think the people they represent are some of the worst in the world. It's marginally more reliable than RT, and then only because Qatar is more of an ambiguous global player. It's worth always remembering that AJ is the english language, liberal-compatible face of a regime that murders gay people, imprisons women, and flogs people for adultery.
Is it telling? Let's say a true story were reported in a paper you think is garbage but also in a reputable one. Someone posts a link to the garbage one. Wouldn't you tell them to avoid the garbage site?
I think you and GP disagree on whether Al Jazeera is trustworthy or garbage, but I don't see the problem you seem to be implying exists.
Google curates your search results based on your past behavior. If you’re constantly looking to biased, false reporting for news, that’s what you’ll get in the future, everyone downvoting me for saying AJ is biased doesn’t like to look in the mirror.
They all think “the other side is the one that reads fake news, all my news sources are impeccable.” No, you’re just in your own echo chamber that you’ve got telling you the exact things you want to hear. Sharing a story from AJ on Israel is like using RT for the state of Ukraine’s nazi agenda. You’re gonna get a very false picture of reality.
You make a good point. Please excuse my offtopic aside: could you use better news sources than the NY Post? We have, for instance, active discussion of the story on this site, via a Politico story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30482998
The Russian barbarians have destroyed Budapest in 1956. Grozny in 2000. Both were rebuilt. Kyiv will be rebuilt again. It took Hungary 33 years to be free of the Russian yoke, Chechnya is still occupied 22 years in but nothing lasts forever.
Remember the Ukrainian anthem:
Ukraine is not yet dead, nor its glory and freedom,
Luck will still smile on us brother-Ukrainians.
Our enemies will die, as the dew does in the sunshine,
and we, too, brothers, we'll live happily in our land.
Putin is not giving off the same vibes of dark inspiration that he had in, say, Grozny. He comes across as foolishly distant, esp. compared to Zelensky:
In terms of being at risk of a coup, you have to look back to Kruschev to see a leader in Moscow more clearly in danger of losing his grip on power. The invocation of the nuclear threat can only have increased this danger.
Not to minimize, but the destruction of Grozny (both in raw numbers and in proportion to the resident population) in 2000 was much greater than the havoc wrought on Bupapest in 1956.
In terms of civilian deaths per capita, the loss in Grozny was easily 20x, for example.
For me the question is how far will the world let Russia go? Has the rest of the world already made a decision to only work through sanctions and not actually interfere? It has for now obviously but will that decision not change even after 10 days? Chinese neighbors must be watching this with a lot of concern. Particularly Taiwan, because if the west is not doing anything when a war happens in its backyard now hat hope does Taiwan have when China decides to occupy.
I'd dispute that - I think they actually timed their policy shift well. Their export control policies were hugely symbolic, a totem of guilt. The Germans genuinely, and to their significant credit, feel the moral weight of their nation's history. Their reluctance was commendable and not token. Overcoming it is a clear moral judgement that many will hear.
Not least Moscow's elite. German relations with Russia were once much better than most of the rest of Europe's - Russia does not view Germany as simple US puppet.
Fair enough, and yes, to have the brakes on this is in principle a good thing but for all the same money Ukraine would have been significantly worse off already because of the slow response. But you are right that this is a feature.
No, "Russian control over a key sector to their economy" is not a plausible analysis, imo. You do not specify, but may I assume you refer to Russia's LNG leverage?
It is not reasonable to seek just-so geostategic facts, or single points of leverage, that explain societies of millions and the policies of their governments.
Understanding something of German politics can elucidate origins of German policy.
"Guilt" is a lazy reduction on my part. It references a sense of special German responsibility to never cause or encourage war, especially in Europe - the zeitgeist of West Germany's post-war generation. A recent DW opinion piece summarizes the received wisdom:
"There are good reasons why Germany has adopted the stance of, on principle, not supplying weapons to war or crisis zones – especially when it concerns a region that, within living memory, has suffered the consequences of a terrible German occupation. The danger of further fueling conflicts if more and more weapons are supplied is not one that can be dismissed out of hand." [0]
Knowing so well the sins of their parents, this generation has sought a path to be proud, little-g germans - replacing nationalism and patriotism with moral vocation. Consider this recollection, from an Austrian born in 1947: https://youtu.be/Qmp--Z8pmTU?t=103.
There is so much more to consider: I haven't escaped lazy shorthand. For instance, the German arms industry is fourth largest in the world. Hypocrisy, monitoring, and debate abound [1]. Analyzing a democratic polity oft feels like a fractal fool's errand.
Certainly, all this is not to say Russia has not influenced Germany's foreign, security, and arms exports policies. The described German sense of responsibility includes a particular sensitivity with regard to criticism of Russia, and an eagerness for economic engagement. Russia sacrificed far more to defeat the Nazis than all other allies combined, and Germans know this well, especially Ossies (not so the rest of the West - often a particular grievance of ordinary Russians).
The LNG vulnerability is doubtless a salient consideration in German policy decisions. But they've conclusively demonstrated the other factors have more weight, and they are willing to pay a price for principle. Indeed, previous to the policy change they were paying a different price - the opprobrium and frustration of allies and America - on the grounds on principle.
> But they've conclusively demonstrated the other factors have more weight
In so many words, you have not, at all.
You admit as much yourself. "The German arms industry is fourth largest in the world." But when it comes to Russia, supposedly they now purport it's because they feel the guilt of the WW2 atrocities, that's the reason behind their actions.
Ok then, turn off the gas imports. "No we absolutely can't do that. But it's not about the gas, we assure you. Ex-Chancellor Schroder being Chairman of the Board of Rosneft is just a funny coincidence."
The US and many European countries are already openly supplying arms to Ukraine, so I guess it depends on your definition of interfere. If you mean attacking the Russians directly, it probably depends on how long the Ukrainians can hold out. The longer they endure the weaker Putin becomes.
IMVHO Taiwan is already grabbed, China just wait the USA for semiconductors production capacity, when the need of TW wains enough for the USA China will invade and the USA will just menace, apply limited sanction that does not really hurt nor China nor USA economy etc.
> China just wait the USA for semiconductors production capacity
So what.. we're talking 20-30 years in the future? Taiwan will still likely be critical to semiconductor manufacturing as they're starting to take over more of the R&D role that USA has traditionally had.
That far ahead, anything could happen. Hell, China could go through another liberalisation phase. If the blue party in Taiwan gets to power again, China will likely have a period of friendlier relations with Taiwan as well.
You’re very correct. The most illogical position to take is that Russia will stop with Ukraine. It is true that Putin has genocidal wishes against the people, but just like Hitler what he really loves is power and conquest.
There are rumors that tonight will actually be the worst night thus far in an attempt to bring Ukraine to the table with the remnants of the night fresh in their minds.
Calling Putin's bluff on invading Ukraine was the biggest mistake the West made. NATO should have seeked to recruit new member countries from other regions. They forced Putin into action.
If you are calling for an assault on Russia in the hopes of making Putin bow out of this war, you would be effectively starting WWIII. Putin has just recently called bluff on readying the nuclear warheads, I don't think any leader wants to antagonize the situation any further.
The most reasonable course of action IMO (with the least amount of casualties) is to let Putin have his way for now, and let him deal with the consequences later on.
Nobody forced Putin to invade. That was Putin's decision. Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman.
The world can do much now. Even from just a humanitarian perspective, accepting refugees, making sure people don't starve (Ukraine, also Afghanistan, and elsewhere).
Because he thinks this is how he stays in power. He set up this whole situation with a lot of optimism about Ukraine capitulating, or getting some concessions, and it didn't work out. Now he's attacking because he doesn't want to look weak by withdrawing the buildup. That might lead to him losing power, in his mind.
Or he's insane. The above is the only rational explanation I can think of.
NATO membership is a canard. Putin's real objection is Ukraine being a western facing democracy right on his door step. That makes the Russian Federation look like what it is: a bunch of stooge kleptocrats who hold on to power through murder and intimidation.
>Ukraine joining or not joining NATO is irrelevant, a canard, a red herring, a strawman.
It's the number one reason why this is is happening.
Putin said it was a red line on about 75 separate occasions. Ukraine ignored and pushed ahead anyway. NATO ignored and pushed ahead anyway.
Two days before the invasion as Putin announced a "semi" pull out of amassed, Zelensky reiterated his commitment to joining NATO.
NATO destroyed Libya (now on its second civil war). I doubt they'd leave Russia alone after incorporating Ukraine. It would be irrational to not fear its encroachment.
He also wrote 5000 words long essay last year how Ukraine shouldn't really exist and is really just a part of Russia and in his long rant announcing the invasion barely mentioned NATO at all.
But sure, all that NATO name dropping surely is the reason for this aggression on a sovereign nation.
Yeah he said that he wanted to "denazify" the place too which is bollocks as well. These were both pretexts. He probably believes the crap about them being brothers but it wouldnt be enough to trigger an invasion.
NATO as a threat is very real, though. It is enough.
NATO until this week was full of countries who couldn't bother equipping their armies with basic necessities. German soldiers used broomsticks during one NATO exercise and even those with somewhat competent armies were optimising for "surgical" interventions instead of large conflicts. Threat was more rhetorical than real.
Angry heavily armed NATO troops in Warsaw matter less to Moscow than the potential for NATO troops in Mariupol poised to cut Russia off from the caucauses and the black sea.
It's like the geopolitical equivalent of shouting aggressively at a bear from a mile away vs just being between her and her cubs.
Ukrainian-Russian border is where Russia is at its most vulnerable, hence why the reaction to projected NATO encroachment is so violent.
I don't really see how anything changed. The strategic criticality of the Ukrainian coast hasnt changed. The Russian position on NATO hasnt changed.
From day 1 of the invasion it seemed clear to me that their goal was not to occupy all of Ukraine but to "break" it and potentially to cleave off strategic pieces in negotiations and extract a promise of neutrality/demilitarization.
Such as? With respect to NATO membership it was fairly plain that everything from asking nicely all the way up to 200,000 troops deployed on the border wasnt enough to deter either NATO or Zelensky.
You don't seem to understand the concept of Sovereignty, what other countries do is not up to Putin, and if they don't do what he wants that does not give him a right to invade or dictate terms.
I'm never said he did have a "right to invade". I'm just trying to explain, against MUCH resistance, why he did.
Because I think the real reason why this all happened A) matters rather a lot B) is being swept under the carpet.
NATO's (lack of) respect for Libya's sovereignty can perhaps explain why Putin didnt think that it would have much respect for Russia's sovereignty which is, in turn, why he didnt have much respect for Ukraine's.
No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.
You seem to know Putin very well. Better than I think any outsider has a right to claim.
The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant, but you seem to be a bit stuck on that subject as though there is a possible justification to be found there.
> No country respects the sovereignty of another when it feels threatened.
There was no conceivable way in which Ukraine was a threat to Russia. Full stop.
He's always been a fairly plain speaker. We dont tend to always pay attention to what he says though. His rage in reaction to NATO's Libya incursion is pretty well documented even if we did ignore it.
It wasnt like he was unclear that pursuing NATO membership => invasion either.
>The real reason why this happened is utterly irrelevant
This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...
> This is precisely the way to make this kind of thing happen again and again and again...
No, the way to make sure this won't happen again is to make sure that little tinpot dictators don't get their hands on nuclear arms. Apropos, North Korea...
As I recall this was Cuba's argument after the failed bay of pigs invasion. They asked for nuclear weapons on their soil and the USSR agreed to provide them.
The US took a dim view of it if I recall correctly.
When the defence of the heartland is threatened, notions such as sovereignty tend to take a back seat and invasion is very much on the table.
Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular. Hence the insistence that NATO membership is a red line.
> Strategically the Ukrainian border is kind of like Russia's jugular.
How true is this since circa 1950, though? There are very few plausible scenarios involving a ground invasion and most of Russia is exposed to modern weaponry so it’s not like the primary threat is a bunch of B-52s flying out of Kyiv. It’s true that distance affects reaction times but they already have similar range borders & submarine launches substantially affected that, too.
Long range, aircraft launched, deployed hypersonic nuclear delivery systems will render this even more moot, relative to the current status quo, in the next 20 years.
At the end of the day, it appears Russia wants eastern Europe politically.
Until they can accept it as independent and sovereign, any protestations about military systems are smoke screens for their general unhappiness with an independent eastern Europe.
If Putin isn’t afraid of NATO even defending an invasion of Ukraine, what makes you think he’s actually afraid of NATO attacking Russian soil?
Btw the Russian troop “pullout” was a fabricated lie. It was a few tanks sent back needing mechanical repairs from heavy drills. So it appears we’ve already established you’re falling for Russian state propaganda talking points that turned out to be false.
This is not going well for Putin. He was able to set up two puppet breakaway regions in Georgia and then invade while the world did nothing. Now the entire country is a Russian puppet. He tried to call Biden's and the EU's bluff and do it again in Ukraine, thinking his control of natural gas would prevent a unified response, but that hasn't happened, with sanctions continually ratcheting and supplies pouring into Ukraine.
Yeah I don't think the sanctions have moved him one single bit. A lot of EU countries are still dependent on natural gas from Russia, including Germany. I remind you, the war is still days old.
He didn't think the sanctions would happen, which is why he proceeded as originally planned. They did. The difference this time is that the rest of the world had time to start discussing options because they knew what Putin would try to do.
Now he's making little progress with overthrowing the Ukrainian government and suffering economic damage on top. It's only a matter of time.
How did we do that? I think we knew he was serious from the beginning.
And we behaved accordingly, though shamefully, in my opinion. We ought to have done "to others what we would have them do to us" (i.e. send aid, supplies, and troops immediately to Ukraine, regardless of the geopolitics involved.)
NATO have been training Ukrainian troops since at least Euromaidan and the US have provided Ukrain with billions in military aid. Actually sending NATO troops to Ukraine is the kind of obvious provocation that clearly could have sparked a Russian invasion.
Clearly Russia want to shorten as much as possible it's western border, it's extremely long and do not have any natural obstacle, essentially indefensible, so the shortest the better. A straight line between the Black sea and the Baltic see is the ideal.
Beside that, however consider the big picture: ALL today's Govs. benefit from this war:
- all face social unrest for the push toward Green New Deal, for the impoverishment off the middle class etc, a war silence such unrest and justify all issue "they are due to the war";
- USA that have largely lost influence in EU, especially after brexit, now do have a deep influence again;
- China, now the sole reliable Russian partner can elicit far more military tech from Russia and far more cheap and abundant natural resources, probably to a point to overpower the USA in few years;
- Putin secure more years to came winning a war.
Who loose? ALL the people, as always.
IMVHO Russia took the entire Ukraine and no one really do anything, perhaps in the next few years also a Baltic "republic". While EU Gov thunder against Russia they agree for more natural resources supplies, stating the contrary to keep energy price sky-high to push the Green New Deal and the world slowly evolve toward a new cold war alike situation. The BIG risk is China: having Russia in it's quiver it can really start a world war likely for some South American country, while India face more and more internal and local unrest favoring a dangerous local conflict. But that part so far is more fantasy than reality.
> all face social unrest for the push toward Green New Deal, for the impoverishment off the middle class etc, a war silence such unrest and justify all issue "they are due to the war";
This is a very odd choice of words and it’s certainly not the case that these are unrelated given Russia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuel sales. It’s very easy to imagine an EU-wide campaign to stick it to Putin by electrifying your HVAC and only buying EVs, for example, or a push to electrify the remaining rail lines so the transportation grid can be powered by renewables.
It’s not a good look at the moment to Start off with a Russian justification of the war and then present an abnormal take on the popular among non-oil dependents green new deal, a plan that just so happens to be very inconvenient for oligarchs in old fashioned gas economies that want to continue spewing CO2 like it’s 1950 - like Russia
Actually I was a year-long lurker... I start exactly for this kind of conversation not to "justifying Putin" but to state that actual government, Russian gov. evidently included, are acting against their own people, so instead of taking side of one dictatorship or another it's better observing what happen and determine what can happen tomorrow.
Knowing their enemies does not means being able "to do something, to fight" but at least avoid being part of their gambling against our own interest.
Time ago I intervene with the same line, and got similar level of criticism, when GitHub start to appear what it is today, without at that time GitLab/sr.ht etc stating that the old series of SFnet, Savannah, FreshMet etc being just single entities doing more or less the same thing, just hosting code they are useful and not harmful while converge all toward a central platform that not only aim to be The One but also offer things to tie devs to itself is actually more harmful than good. Again less time ago when GitHub was bought by Microsoft and many cray in tear "I'll go to $someoneElse" and I observe that ditching a proprietary service for another is a nonsense.
Essentially my point is pushing who read my comments to reason "about the big picture" instead of drive by emotions and propaganda/sheep effect of that time. Unfortunately while some agree many seems to reject even the idea.
Oh, about spewing CO₂ and Green New Deal: I totally agree that pollution (so not only CO₂) is really harmful BUT the actual green new deal is green in the dollar-green sense, in the stereotypical colors of chemical poisons spewed by rusty barrels we see on comics/movies etc NOT in the sense of green grass of the spring. And I still observe the same criticism pattern, even when I add that I'm actually invested in a new home, a p.v. system etc and I'm happy of that...
Because CloudFlare is not passing along client IP/subnet to the authoritative nameserver, so archive.is nameserver refuses to respond (or responds with bogus results). archive.is justifies it with the need for geo-aware DNS resolution, but i personally think that's the very wrong way to do it.
Good connectivity is determined by your ISP knowing what best routes to take to a certain IP, and the DNS is not aware of this BGP layer. Announcing your subnet from several points of presence enables client ISPs to choose the best route for them (cheapest/fastest), but resolving to different IPs depending on client "location" may provide inconsistent results that don't go over the fastest route.
Supposedly because Cloudflare doesn't send EDNS client subnet information. [1] is archive.today's statement, it has been discussed at length (with much head scratching) on HN in the past.
The great fear is that Russia will simply use artillery to flatten the city bit by bit.
That said - Ukranians have not (yet) lost all the ground. Russian forces in a large country are quite vulnerable to attack from all sides if it can be sustained and coordinated.
The Eastern 1/2 of Ukraine is largely still open even as the W. is partly contended - this gives a lot of space for Ukraine to manoeuvre and regroup - and most notably - to be reinforced from Poland.
Currently, the Russians are paying a heavy, daily price that is completely unsustainable to them.
The question becomes - can they get into a 'grinding' position in which they are wearing down the Ukranians, while at the same time minimising their costs and loses? It's hard to say.
West is also taking note and the frankly heroic and effective acts of Ukranians is encouraging giving them more gear. The Javelins etc. are being used very effectively, I mean, the US can do serious damage to the Russians just by handing off Javelins and not even putting their own soldiers at risk? That's the 'deal of the century'.
As the war prolongs, then more complicated equipment that requires even a bit of training can be deployed to similar effect.
Specifically, artillery is vulnerable to radar and rapid counter attack, so long as the equipment is there. If the Ukranians have access to this kind of tech (there is some talk of it), they can use it to disable or at least degrade any kind of 'siege artillery'. Russians have a limited supply of rockets, and they can't use their close air support (Stingers), and even fast air is a bit risky.
Ukraine is also a big country. Chechnya is 1.5M people and that was a painful mess. Ukraine is 45M people with support from the West, that's a different range of calculation.
Ukraine has a long western border with the EU for supplies to enter, Poland, Slovakia, Hunary and Romania. It would be extremely hard for Russia to close that entire border.
Russia will never have full air superiority 'because Stingers'.
Ukraine's fixed assets were wiped out on day 1, but they have mobile units which I believe are still effective.
The lack of use of a lot of air power by Russia in the last few days I believe is due to the fact that on day 1 they had serious damages and it's just very costly out there.
Mobile AA units can operate independently but I don' know if it's Russian or Western gear, if Russian, it may be hard to replace. Because even free gear from the West right now would require training.
But - there is an unlimited supply of Stingers from the West, and those will do serious damage to all helicopters, and seriously risk close air, and also hugely risk transport aircraft on approach.
Ukraine can plop a 19 year old anywhere within 3-4K of an aerodrome and pluck transports out of the sky with impunity. So far they've knocked out 2 transports which is very expensive to the Russians.
On day 1 they tried to land airborne using 30 transport helicopters, 3 were taken out, that's devastating. Russians had to follow up with 100 helicopter transport landing at once, to land 1000 soldiers, that is a huge portion of their rotary wing assault fleet for one single operation. Very risky.
That said, the Russians are sill flying missions.
But yes, it's a huge factor.
Ukraine's ability to consistently deny Air Support is 100% a decisive issue. Without it, they'd be getting demolished by Russian Airships, much like Iraqi Army facing the US.
Even with 'Air Superiority' - if the West side of the river remains free of Russian units, then Urkanians can operate.
'Air Power' is helpful against known targets, in a fight, bombing strategic things like airfields. But even a few dozen migs running daily sorties can't keep 30 Million people down. They can just inflict some pain.
If Ukraine can keep a big plot of territory connected to Europe in it's hands, and conduct operations in occupied lands, it can win.
As of today it's looking bad for Russians. They are not making progress and now the West has been mobilised against them.
It seems Russia's air forces capabilities were over-estimated and Ukraine's under-estimated. Ukraine is still flying fighter jets (MiG-29s and Su-27s)...
>The most important battle was, again, for Kyiv. Russia failed to seize an airport on its outskirts on February 24th, the first day of the war.
Spetsnaz airborne were routed day 1. Was it really just Ukrainians? Or did they have some proxy help?
>Despite its impressive resistance, the city faced the prospect of imminent encirclement.
General mobilization is a huge factor here. Russian troops are fighting against people who have nothing left to lose. encirclement doesnt matter, when they enter the city they will lead with spetsnaz because if they don't... they will take tremendous losses. Russia hasn't even started to see the real resistance yet.
Makes me think they're actually being truthful when claiming they've killed 1000s of Russian soldiers. If Red Cross accepted but the numbers they reported are far lower, it wouldn't be good for Ukraine
