Comment by starwind | Hacker News Reader

Comment by starwind | Hacker News Reader

They lack the technical capabilities.

"As evidence of the State Armament Programme’s implementation until 2015 showed, the Russian defence industry still had not made the leap from ‘dumb-iron’ equipment to twenty-first-century sophistication.

"Russia’s intervention in Syria is a case in point. As [Russian defense analyst and director of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies] Ruslan Pukhov argued, the performance of the Russian Air Force in Syria was impressive if compared to the 2008 war with Georgia, where it lost seven aircraft in blue-on-blue incidents within a matter of four days. From an international perspective, however, it’s technological level now matches at best that of the US air force during the 1991 Gulf War a quarter of a century ago. Weaknesses have been visible in Syria, particularly in terms of the sophistication of precision-guided munitions, a shortage of targeting systems, deficiencies in aerial reconnaissance capabilities, and a lack of long-range UAVs and attack drones." --Bettina Renz, Russia's Military Revival 2018, page 80

> particularly in terms of the sophistication of precision-guided munitions, a shortage of targeting systems

I think they have weakness in engines as well. It is rumoured that the Chinese stealth fighter J20's biggest weakness is its engine

Another one of their customer country India apparently used American engines in their own fighter jet instead of Russian ones despite higher cost and having operational and maintenance experience with Russian engines.

Interestingly, the Indian variants of Russian fighter jets do integrate a lot of tech from West.

Tbh, now that we expect uavs everywhere, why would a competitive military in the 21st century even lead with troops. Shouldn't they do clean up to strategic attacks on various critical infrastructure.

They were just out shelling the nuclear facility when they could make some strategic strikes.

This seems on point.

They haven't been able to modernize due to budget.

This document from 2017 was written by the US military and analyzes and points out weaknesses in the Russian BTG (Battalion Tactical Group) doctrine and has some excellent points that make a lot of what is currently occurring fall into place. https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201...

>Current Russian state net revenues from energy cannot fund the same modernization period as before.

Basically they can't modernize.

It then goes into the current Russian BTG doctrine and how it leaves armored groups exposed due to a lack of supporting infantry and air.

>The BTG’s may be vulnerable to raids, counterattacks and other surprise movements because reliance on analog C2 limits subordinate units’ ability to understand and react to changes of circumstance.

>A BTG had the entire brigade’s support and enabling resources, but it had only one mechanized-infantry battalion

>According to Russian Army manuals, in the field as many as 50 percent of infantry soldiers can be required for local security and routine administrative tasks. This leaves relatively few infantrymen available for mounted squads. Squads are usually organized ad hoc and are less than fully manned,which makes them less effective and less independent. For opponents, it also means that it requires fewer casualties to neutralize the Russian squads.

>The lack of infantry causes BTG commanders to prefer to isolate urban infantry strongpoints for prolonged sieges instead of assaulting

The document also goes into supply issues that BTGs will likely face.

Basically the current Russian doctrine is ridiculously ineffective. It involves lots of independent battalions of almost pure armor. Which get destroyed consistently due to a lack of supporting infantry. To the point where it's quite possible they'll lose this war. The Russians thought it was effective in Chechnya and Syria and the 2014 war with Ukraine since they simply didn't face significant resistance. All of the above weaknesses are now very apparent however.

One last thing

>The current military and political leaders are the same leaders who introduced the BTG structure; their reputations and careers are closely tied to its success. Instead of moderating BTG rollout and keeping a portion of the Russian Army in a divisional structure to train for high-intensity CAM, Russia’s leaders are accelerating the rate that units convert into BTGs.

> To the point where it's quite possible they'll lose this war.

Not fast enough. My understanding is the current Western military analyses still predict the Russians will eventually win, it'll just cost them more.

IMHO, if we want to Ukrainians to win, it'll require either some kind of direct military intervention, or giving them control of much more advanced equipment (e.g. cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc.)

Have you thought about what happens if Russia looses? Ukraine is a red line for them.

What happens when Finland becomes the "red line" or Poland etc. Both parts of the Russian "empire" at one time or another. It has to stop somewhere. Now is as good a time as any, especially as Russia has proven they are militarily weak.

The longer this war is allowed to continue, the weaker Russia will become. A weak Russia both increases the risk of nuclear weapons being used as well as that of other states - China in particular - using this weakness to try to grab some of that enormous, resource-rich area called Siberia.

So, let this war be finished soon in the same way that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the US intervention in Vietnam were finished: in defeat without obliteration. Let Putin loose face and be deposed so that a new generation can take over in Russia, preferably one which is not controlled by some globalist loon nor one which has dreams of reinstating some former Russian empire. Let Ukraine become the European nation it claims to be which means they need to rid themselves of corruption. Let the mistakes which were made in the de-sovietification of the former USSR be corrected, get rid of the oligarchs and their cronies. Smoke out Lukashenko from White Russia so that that nation can also learn to stand on its own feet once the Putinistas have been purged.

And for the love of ${$deity} stop with the stupid, braindead anti-everything-that-is-Russian attitude that I see growing around me. I see a Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky concerts being cancelled in the Netherlands, Russian-language children's reading hours in the library in Sweden are cancelled, a university in Italy wanted to ban Dostoyevsky from its curriculum and more of such stupidity. Just stop it already, realise that Russia is part of Europe and will remain so after this war is over. Realise, also, that Dostoyevsky was imprisoned by the then-version of Putin, that Ukrainians are just as enamoured of Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky as Russians and others are, that those Russian-language reading hours in a Swedish city would most likely get the children to dislike Putinism more than that it would encourage them to follow him. If Clancy is to believed one of the bigger insults you could make to a Russian was that he was uncultured - некультурный. Let's show that we are not while making clear that it is Putin and his ilk who represent the barbarians at the gate.

> Let Putin loose face and be deposed so that a new generation can take over in Russia, preferably one which is not controlled by some globalist loon nor one which has dreams of reinstating some former Russian empire.

After being potentially devastated by the sanctions and embarassed by the world, there are no guarantees that anyone taking over from Putin would be more reasonable, less nationalistic, or less likely to utilize nuclear strikes. More chaos and instability in Russia after a Putin exit could backfire with a random cast of characters gaining power. A risky roll of your favorite multi-sided dice.

> After being potentially devastated by the sanctions and embarassed by the world, there are no guarantees that anyone taking over from Putin would be more reasonable, less nationalistic, or less likely to utilize nuclear strikes. More chaos and instability in Russia after a Putin exit could backfire with a random cast of characters gaining power. A risky roll of your favorite multi-sided dice.

It's also worth noting a Putin victory won't necessarily lead to some kind of stability. For a brief time Ukraine had nukes, but gave them up. The lesson of this invasion to every medium-size power next to a giant will be: if you value your independence, get nukes, and don't give them up.

The cancelling of Russian-language reading hours in Sweden was not due to the war. That was fake news. Please be more careful about spreading misinformation in the future.

Please be more critical in accepting excuses for misdirected attempts at supporting a cause. I read that "excuse" as well and was not convinced - it is not hard to find someone to volunteer to read stories to children.

So you think it is reasonable to spread what is essentially a conspiracy theory? Why should I not trust a public library that it is difficult to find a replacement for a Russian-speaker willing to read stories for children?

> Have you thought about what happens if Russia looses? Ukraine is a red line for them.

Honestly? The Russians go home. Putin makes threats, but they're to scare his adversaries into pulling their punches out of fear, while he does what he was always going to do.

If his goal is to rebuild the Soviet empire, it's an automatic failure if he escalates until Moscow is a smoking pit.

> They were just out shelling the nuclear facility when they could make some strategic strikes.

Were they? https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-usa-nuclear-e...

The headline is really awful. The brief article walks it back a bit.

Sorta like saying, the burglar didn’t steal from mysecretaccount2’s house, just the garage.

There was a firefight last night close to those reactors. The battle was over a museum nearby. Here's a twitter thread with the original live stream CCTV footage, clips, and just-in-time analysis in the thread and comments [0] [1]

[0]: https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1499527941377732609

[1]: https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1499545373744017424

I read the article you linked. It says yes they attacked using small arms, but did not attack the reactors themselves. The OP indicated shelling, so you are correct that OP is not accurate. The video I saw showed a flare, which seems to be how the fire started. Firefighters were unable to get to it because of the battle.

Either way, why on earth are invaders within the fence line of a nuclear facility. Completely absurd

They received fire from a building adjoining the facility and they responded - just like any other military would do.

Both sides think the other side might use nuclear power plants as a dirty bomb.

Anyway if the Russians want to control all the country they can't let a nuclear power plant left alone, it's a strategic asset.

>why on earth are invaders within the fence line of a nuclear facility

Maybe Russia is worried that Ukraine might have been covertly developing nuclear weapons, and they don't want to give the Ukrainians any more time to hide the evidence.

> Either way, why on earth are invaders within the fence line of a nuclear facility.

In WW2, on Okinawa and various other islands, the Japanese had set up nursing stations and other logistics inside natural cave structures, staffed largely by civilians, and of those, largely by women, some with children in tow.

When the Allied forces pushed onto these islands, the Japanese reasoned that if they retreated into these caves and placed the civilians in front of the forces, the Allies wouldn't have the heart to firebomb and/or shoot innocents in order to get to the fighting forces. This reasoning was faulty, as MacArthur and others below him in the CoC ordered the massacre of countless civilians to finish the job.

Facts on the ground are sketchy, but my understanding is that the Ukrainian forces made a similar gamble, that "if we retreat into a nuclear power plant, nobody would be dumb enough to fire on our position here", and that they were as wrong as the Japanese.

This is a common gamble that tacticians make, betting on the better angels of our nature to not do horrible things. But we're barely-evolved monkeys, and this gamble is almost always wrong.

However, despite the apparent lack of technical capability, ‘dumb-iron’ has inflicted an horrendous amount of damage and the potential to wreak significantly more carnage in Ukraine.

A blunt instrument wielded by a madman.

It may "get the job done", but only if the job doesn't require a conscience.

Well, also if the goal is the carnage itself and nothing else. The Kremlin is very clearly still operating under the idea that violent repression will lead to a compliant, productive population - which wasn't true at any point in USSR history even.

The Kremlin's only real goal is power. Other goals are merely means to that end.

Same goes for Beijing and North Korea.

There has never been any doubt that 20th century weapons are sufficient to do horrendous damage to civilian targets. WWII shows plenty of examples, many of them in Russia. Saying that the modern Russian army is at least as capable as the WWII Russian army... I mean, it's not wrong, it's just not interesting.

It has, but ultimately it’s just expending surplus equipment built up by the Soviet Union. It’s not a sustainable or even sensible approach.

Honestly, the Russians would be better off with 1950 Chinese style mass conscripted infantry formations with modern weapons, atgm, and manpads.

The day the invasion started, it was like early India morning it was the scariest morning I've had in a while.

The sheer rate at which they fired missiles(Cruise? Iskandr?) and the rate at which they were able to cripple anything in sight was scary.

If this is what a reduced capability armed forces can do. I shudder to imagine what a real power can do, and sheer loss of human life and value that humans built would be(is already) heart wrenching.

Their missile strikes seemed very effective, it's the rest of their army that seem inefficient. More efficiency would mean they would be further in the control of the country and would have sustained less losses. It doesn't mean there would be more civilian deaths, on the contrary I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com