This is an unwinnable war. The US and Russia could not even conquer Afghanistan - with a virtually non-existent army, and no allies to help Afghanistan.
As Ukraine is showing - they have a strong, well organized military. Beside a lack of anti-bomber missiles (Patriots) - they have everything they need to defend themselves.
They now have full support from almost the entire advanced world beside China and India. And it looks like they'll be getting some Patriot missiles within 24 hours.
Russia doesn't even have partial support from anyone. The best they can get is China and India trying to stay neutral - and it looks like China is starting to side with the rest of the world, with reports it has blocked all banks from lending money to Russia.
As an Indian guy married to a Chinese, I am deeply ashamed of how our governments lack a spine to voice the morally correct opinion in time. (Such events might actually make my resolve firmer to acquire Japanese citizenship from my current PR status)
I can't even imagine how much worse Afghanistan would've been if the Taliban had access to modern antivehicle weaponry. Something like an NLAW or Javelin costs about 1/100 what a modern Russian tank costs and takes little training to use.
Let us all be glad that - at least for now - it is several orders of magnitude cheaper to defend than to attack (beside crazy things like nuclear weapons).
Example: stingers have 95% accuracy on jets - cost ~$20k. Jets cost $40m+.
Tank cost $5m+. Javelins cost ~$180k.
Patriot missiles cost $1m. Bombers can cost $500m+
You're forgetting how Pakistan PM Khan immediately landed in Moscow after the invasion, declaring to his Russian welcomers "what a time I have come. So much excitement." They're trying to work out a gas pipeline deal. Pakistan is probably the most supportive of Russia by trying to be opportunistic.
Afghanistan is unwinnable by any country unless they are willing to declare total war and wiping out all resistance without any attention to human rights.
Putin is explicitly threatening the use of nuclear weapons. That’s what this means:
“No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history”
Thermobaric means that the explosion uses oxygen from the air and don't need to carry oxidizer. Thermobaric weapons are not that rare. They come in all shapes and sizes. Russia has thermobaric warheads for RPG-9's. The US has 40mm thermobaric grenades.
TOS-1 or TOS-1A mentioned in the article are relative short range 3,500 m -
6,000 m. They destroy effectively areas of few hundred meters in diameter. But missiles are big and supply logistics needed is extensive.
If they are going to indiscriminately bomb cities like in Chechnya and Syria world opinion will only go worse for them. Ukrainians are relatable to Westerners.
Stingers are manufactured in Germany. Logistically, they need to load some crates into a few trucks and drive about thirteen hours. The logistics of limited warfare in modern Europe is frighteningly straightforward.
Is there some doubt that the Polish authorities will be more than happy to provide them with a police escort?
To arm them ahead of time would have appeared to justify Putin’s claims. That would have been a different kind of disaster. I don’t know why anyone thought he wasn’t going to do this, you don’t mass the army like that unless you’re going to use it. But it’s clear he’s just picking a fight for now reason this way.
>> I agree but it’s not for no reason. If Ukrainians can pursue democracy and European values, so could Russians.
Fantasy outcome: Ukraine not only pushes Russia out, but takes back the regions Putin previously took from them. Russian citizens finally overthrow Putin and decide to put the whole empire back together - including Ukraine - with Volodymyr Zelenskyy as their leader. ;-)
You get a World War by not resisting Hitler as early as possible. We’re witnessing a historical bravery of Ukrainian people, left to fight the evil Putin’s empire by themselves. Stop being such cowards.
The big question is, how much bravery can we show before Putin starts going all in with bigger weapons? Personally I would rather be a coward and not have my country involved even if it may possibly just be delaying the inevitable for when there is no choice.
My country lost 60% of male population in WW1, and around 18% of total population in WW2. It crippled us forever. I think it's better to not rush into things.
> Putin may now also qualify as a war criminal, according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. War crimes include willful killing and extensive destruction of property “not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” The term has been inconsistently interpreted and unevenly applied to leaders or countries—including to the U.S. and its officials—who have initiated aggression for reasons considered unjustified. In Ukraine, Putin’s “war of choice” has clearly violated international law through his invasion of a sovereign country and attempt to oust its government.
This is what the title refers to. The rest is just reiteration of current facts and his bloodthirst and delusion.
The U.S. would have a very questionable LBUF to invade at this point. If the U.S. were to put boots on the ground today, the best justification and mechanism under international law would be collective self-defense, assuming Ukraine wants us to go help.
I’m reading reports that the Russian military is far weaker and less resourced than many believed, due in part to corruption. It sounds like the Russians may not be able to take Ukraine without major escalation. If Putin’s assault is fended off, it demonstrates to the world that Russia is far weaker than we were led to believe. Still, they have ICBMs, and I fear that Putin would be unable to bear this hit to his ego and the image of his “empire”.
That would reduce his standing to a Kim Jong Un level. He would not be able to un-ring that bell. And the first country to launch nukes loses. They might even win that war, but in the international stage what they end up with won’t look like peace.
I would love to believe this as well, but the fog of war is dense -- maybe even more dense when state-controlled Russian actors are able to flood every social media platform with propaganda.
Even the confirmed information from the ground is incomplete (as you'd expect this early in the conflict).
What sources do you feel are reliable regarding the situation on the ground?
Also, Russian media have been forbidden from using the word "invasion" and reporting about civilian deaths. He is clearly losing ground among Russian citizens too, possibly among some of the richest oligarchs too, who for sure don't care a shit about deaths just like him, but could see their profits severely hit by real sanctions, assuming we (as Europe) will have the balls to impose them.
Two of them, Press Secretary Peskov and Abramovich, both have daughters that decried the war on Instagram. (Peskov's daughter's post was taken down fast.)
Btw, she's also an assistant to the far right former-"National Front" French politician, Aymeric Chauprade. In case anyone's head has been in the sand about Putin's influence in aggrandizing the far right in the western world, causing disinformation and division.
I wished more Russians stood up and free themselves from these old KGB farts
Let's have a peaceful, prospering Europe with all peaceful Russians -- kick these war mongers in their butts. Call back all the soldiers that aren't too motivated anyway.
We could do a lot more by confiscating the oligarchs wealth. They have houses, boats football clubs all over the western world. We should randomly seize some of them every day, to encourage an end to hostilities.
I would say it should be "total" rather than "random". This regime has shown that it is an existential threat to world stability and must be eliminated. Putin has been pushing boundaries for years and it's time for an end to their reign.
> In Ukraine, Putin’s “war of choice” has clearly violated international law through his invasion of a sovereign country and attempt to oust its government.
Definitely qualifies.
The problem being, Iraq and Libya also definitely qualify.
This isn't March Madness. We're not here to do brackets. We all know who and what BO was. Trying to diminish that by hiding behind an oversimplification such as "Well, he's no Vlad" is anti-history.
I can answer you question. But it's off-topic and out of scope so I'm not going to entertain its laziness. You're caught up in the emotions of the moment. That's of no interest to me.
The scope is war criminals. Full stop.
At no point did I say one is better or worse than another. That's not how it works.
Death is death. The type of cancer that does it is irrelevant.
There is no "explicit purpose of conquest". At no point Russia claimed that, they only said they want NATO far away from their borders. That is an assumption you're making, the same way I can claim USA/UK invaded Libya to create ISIS
Obama destroyed Libyan lives, that still live worse today than before the invasion
Russia will destroy Ukrainian lives
They both claimed they did invade it for peace
Which invader is a war criminal is not conditional on how advanced the country is
You're in a pretty big bubble if you think it was worth anyone's time to compare invading Ukraine for absolutely zero reason with ~30% of the world's second strongest army - to a few drone strikes in Syria that were not completely unprovoked.
The refernce point is war crimes. Full stop. It's not a bracketed competition (a la March Madness).
That aside, I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that Obama used a drone - and a creative WH legal team - to assassinate an American. So while that might not be a war crime in the international sense it might get y'all to read what was said.
Obama - the Peace Prize guy - loved the War in Afghanistan as well. Don't be so naive. He didn't have a halo. He was pro undeclared war like the rest.
Um...The Military Industrial Complex did. And fyi The MIC is not a conspiracy theory.
You're naive to think that there are not empire builders and control freaks within our borders. And they are comfortable with most any means given their ends.
Total false equivalence here. I don't agree with what GW Bush or Obama did in regards to "stabilizing" the region, but this is a totally different situation. Ukraine was absolutely no threat to Russia and this was an unprovoked invasion.
The New Yorker articles always feel like I'm reading a very expensive blogpost from a new college graduate. Some opinion on a topic is repeatedly characterized as fact, just because they have a lot of facts on hand.
This feels like propaganda for a cause that NATO doesn't really believe in enough to stop -- having never folded Ukraine in after the breakup of the USSR.
> The first day of the invasion was just that—the first day.
> In the eyes of the world and almost certainly history, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday was an epic miscalculation
From a Russia-first point of view, it's straightforward.
Ukraine will eventually join some sort of western coalition (NATO or by some other name in 100 years). He also would like the resources. It's a borderland (an English Channel of sorts) for Russia. Putin thinks he can run things like the USSR did and hold it. I think he can too. Would 200k US soldiers hold texas? Probably, at a cost.
When Putin negotiates to pull back, he'll keep his borderland and the fields with resources and Ukraine will be a bit smaller. Seems like a good bet.
Not to whatabout, but the US has had its fair share of war criminals, some of whom are now treated with admiration by the liberal press [1,2] since they have come out against Trump and Putin.
May? He is a war criminal, he invaded a sovereign nation and is now killing the citizenry unabashedly and bombing civilian targets indiscriminately. We know his policy on jailing LGBQT people and those who have a religion that he doesn't like.
Well, he'd be in good company: Madeleine Allbright, GW Bush, Cheney, Blair, Howard, Obama, Trump, Sarkozy, Macron, Abbott, etc, etc, etc, all need to be charged before War Crimes Tribunals.
Doubt so. It is only 3rd day. USA had longer misadventure like Iraq 10 yrs and Afghan 20 years. As I recalled Powell, Bush Jr and Dick never being convicted for war crimes even though it was confirmed by many during those wars. Heck Obama directly slaughtered children and hospital with his bombs. Plus, Obama is the only known American president to order execution of American citizen without due course. When you have big guns, law doesn't apply. Imagine in an alternate world like Philip K Dick's High Castle, if Nazi Germany had won, Churchill would be the one hanged and mocked throughout history. One thing I did noticed, Putin is way more humane than American in Syria, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan. I think Putin's target is really to decapitate the government. Unlike America of total destruction (go take a look in Syria, and Libya). Seems like he had sent in assasination squad of 10K Chechen to kill.
100 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadhttps://twitter.com/bundeskanzler/status/1497638225200001029
Massive miscalculation by the looks of it.
"Russian thermobaric "vacuum bombs" launcher seen by CNN team in Ukraine"
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news....
https://twitter.com/i/status/1497519335350452231
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q91yFP9E9Yg
As Ukraine is showing - they have a strong, well organized military. Beside a lack of anti-bomber missiles (Patriots) - they have everything they need to defend themselves.
They now have full support from almost the entire advanced world beside China and India. And it looks like they'll be getting some Patriot missiles within 24 hours.
Russia doesn't even have partial support from anyone. The best they can get is China and India trying to stay neutral - and it looks like China is starting to side with the rest of the world, with reports it has blocked all banks from lending money to Russia.
Example: stingers have 95% accuracy on jets - cost ~$20k. Jets cost $40m+.
Tank cost $5m+. Javelins cost ~$180k.
Patriot missiles cost $1m. Bombers can cost $500m+
"Germany to send Ukraine surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank weapons" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480526
"Why didn't the U.S. and allies provide Ukraine with a better air defense system?"
We didn't want to provoke Putin," said an official.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/didnt-us-...
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/pakistan-mosco...
After acquiring a modern SAM capability like the Patriot, they could sure use some modern main battle tanks.
leaving a buffer state in a mess is a good situation for him.
https://yle.fi/news/3-12335297 ("FM Haavisto: Russia could be ready to use nuclear weapons")
“No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history”
Maybe another Stanislav would polonium is tee a little bit....
TOS-1 or TOS-1A mentioned in the article are relative short range 3,500 m - 6,000 m. They destroy effectively areas of few hundred meters in diameter. But missiles are big and supply logistics needed is extensive.
also lol @ the #stinger hashtag
Stingers are manufactured in Germany. Logistically, they need to load some crates into a few trucks and drive about thirteen hours. The logistics of limited warfare in modern Europe is frighteningly straightforward.
Is there some doubt that the Polish authorities will be more than happy to provide them with a police escort?
Fantasy outcome: Ukraine not only pushes Russia out, but takes back the regions Putin previously took from them. Russian citizens finally overthrow Putin and decide to put the whole empire back together - including Ukraine - with Volodymyr Zelenskyy as their leader. ;-)
This. So much this. My hat's off.
Don't know if this is propaganda, but I do not care. Awesome regardless:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60532715
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/25/vladimir-p...
This is how you hopefully deter Putin, by helping Ukraine defend itself and defeat his "special operation" militarilly.
This is what the title refers to. The rest is just reiteration of current facts and his bloodthirst and delusion.
The thing about the US military is that we've actively been engaged in warfare continuously for a long time. We're battle tested.
Their militaries aren't.
Still, I think it's important to never underestimate the "enemy".
You might want to do some research on Russia's actions in Syria lately.
Even the confirmed information from the ground is incomplete (as you'd expect this early in the conflict).
What sources do you feel are reliable regarding the situation on the ground?
Two of them, Press Secretary Peskov and Abramovich, both have daughters that decried the war on Instagram. (Peskov's daughter's post was taken down fast.)
Peskov does have a 24 year old daughter, Elizaveta. This is her Instagram where the story was posted "no to war."
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVIlI1rjIDM/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-olig...
Btw, she's also an assistant to the far right former-"National Front" French politician, Aymeric Chauprade. In case anyone's head has been in the sand about Putin's influence in aggrandizing the far right in the western world, causing disinformation and division.
More than stupid killing.
I wished more Russians stood up and free themselves from these old KGB farts
Let's have a peaceful, prospering Europe with all peaceful Russians -- kick these war mongers in their butts. Call back all the soldiers that aren't too motivated anyway.
Definitely qualifies.
The problem being, Iraq and Libya also definitely qualify.
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney come to mind. As does Obama and his fondness for drone stikes (and associated collateral damage).
The biggest disappointment here is that even the respected New Yorker is now a card carrying member of the elites' shameless propaganda machine.
I read the news every day, but I guess it's easy to miss a tiny story like that one.
There's no need for that.
Obama was no Putin. Shades of gray exist. Not every bad act is as bad as another.
The scope is war criminals. Full stop.
At no point did I say one is better or worse than another. That's not how it works.
Death is death. The type of cancer that does it is irrelevant.
Obama destroyed Libyan lives, that still live worse today than before the invasion
Russia will destroy Ukrainian lives
They both claimed they did invade it for peace
Which invader is a war criminal is not conditional on how advanced the country is
That aside, I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that Obama used a drone - and a creative WH legal team - to assassinate an American. So while that might not be a war crime in the international sense it might get y'all to read what was said.
Obama - the Peace Prize guy - loved the War in Afghanistan as well. Don't be so naive. He didn't have a halo. He was pro undeclared war like the rest.
Nobody "loved" the war in Afghanistan.
You're naive to think that there are not empire builders and control freaks within our borders. And they are comfortable with most any means given their ends.
Nobody? No way.
> The first day of the invasion was just that—the first day.
> In the eyes of the world and almost certainly history, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday was an epic miscalculation
From a Russia-first point of view, it's straightforward. Ukraine will eventually join some sort of western coalition (NATO or by some other name in 100 years). He also would like the resources. It's a borderland (an English Channel of sorts) for Russia. Putin thinks he can run things like the USSR did and hold it. I think he can too. Would 200k US soldiers hold texas? Probably, at a cost.
When Putin negotiates to pull back, he'll keep his borderland and the fields with resources and Ukraine will be a bit smaller. Seems like a good bet.
[1]: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1496846064023834630
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/18/politics/george-bush-capitol-...
G.W. Bush is the president that authorized the use of a chemical weapon (white phosphorus) in Fallujah, Iraq, 2005.