Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Just witnessed a missile strike on Kyiv city
102 points by Max-Ganz-II on Oct 17, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 86 comments
There’s just been two more explosions.

The first was unheralded, but for the second, first there was gunfire - I grabbed the camera and went to the window, opened it, and I could hear a loud droning noise, an engine - and then I saw a bright white missile in the sky, completely uncamouflaged, flying at a moderate altitude, perhaps 500m? it flew slowly, right-to-left in my field of view, and then began to dive towards its target, the sound of the engine becoming increasingly louder and stronger, and then it plunged below the line of buildings (I’m on the 15th floor) and I could see it no more, then the inevitable crack-bang - different to the explosions from a few days, not so large, but where I had the window open I felt the blast wave come to my face and body, and then of course with sick certainty the unfurling column of dark grey smoke shooting up from the impact site.

I’m hoping not too much additional damage is being done to the electricity infrastructure, although on the face of it, that explosion was simply in central Kyiv, not a very long way from the Samsung building which was hit last time.

I’m amazed at how slow the missile was. It was not rocket powered, but had an engine. I understand now how they can be shot down. There is time to aim and fire a missile.

I can hear more gunfire now, and another explosion just happened.

I was able to grab two or three photos, but it’s a wide-angle lens, so the missile is very small. Not publishing, don’t want to give information to the Russians.

Emergency services’ sirens now.



I believe now this was actually a drone, not a cruise missile.

I thought drone originally, but then I thought no drone would have the range to get to Kyiv. However, this is a drone in the sense of "small aircraft", so, yes, the range is there.


Probably this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

Shahed 136 drone. Speed 115 mph. Range up to 2500km.

Here's video of one being shot down with small arms https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/15819595941122621...


Very interesting video. Those officers did a fine job and they looked like they knew what they were doing and they were calm in a combat situation. I couldn't see the drone at all in the video, only the explosion when it landed. I can't imagine where it landed, out in the middle of nowhere, was the intended target, so I concur; they really did shoot it down. I feel profoundly impressed by the accuracy of their shooting - but although I know a lot about the history of war, and so the nature and characteristics of weapons, I have no actual experience of weapons, so I'm not a strong or qualified judge of such things.


Arguably all cruise missiles are drones.


Sibling post made an interesting point. It could be a "loitering munition", somewhere between cruise missiles and drones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition

It's fascinating how things like this are no longer science fiction.


I walked down to the new impact sites earlier.

I can't say much, no wish to pass useful information on, but I will say the top floor of a residential building is burned out. I think all the people in those top floor apartments are dead, and I think they died in their sleep or just after waking; it was about 6.30am.


Saw some videos myself today, looks like a pain in the ass to deal with. Doesn't look like small arms fire can bring it down, and it flies really low, so probably not ideal for proper air defenses. The other problem seems to be that it has a unit cost of about 20k and looks to be very easy to produce.

Does it do a lot of damage when it lands?


The best counter to those drones would be other drones. Either quads or fixed wing. Its <$1K to put together fast drone with 10 minute battery time. You could probably disable iranian drone with something as simple as ribbon forced into the propeller.


If they are the off the shelf type that seems to be implied here then simple radio and GPS jamming works fine. If it is really unsophisticated then with a powerful enough signal you could hijack it and fly it somewhere safe.


Components might be off the shelf, but integration is custom and Im guessing it has a heavy Kalman filter which wont let you just blast spoofed _elevation changed by 1000m_ GPS signal and expect it to dive dive dive.


I could be completely wrong, but they look like prime targets for shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Easy to see, slow and low.

Gunfire, mmm, don't know. Hand-held, I think you'd have a hell of a time trying to score a hit without tracer bullets, and the bullets which miss will be coming down at speed into central Kyiv. They can perfectly well kill. If you did score a hit, well, I really don't know. Could be it's packed with sensitive internal components - maybe you would at least damage it enough that it would no longer be able to guide correctly to its target. Or maybe it's mainly fuel tank and wing and punching holes in both just before impact makes little difference.

I'd say radar-guided AA gunfire would take such drones out easily, at least when I saw it; but it surely flew to Kyvi at very low altitude, and gained height only at the end.

I wonder if they were piloted in real-time, or if they had on-board guidance?

Damage, I'll see later, when I attend the local impact sites. The bang and smoke were quite a lot less than the missiles from a few days ago.


Some tutorial for bringing these drones down stated that you should load your magazine with 2-1-2-1-2-1 etc where 2 are normal bullets and 1 is tracer. Not sure how effective it is but using normals with tracers is good idea I guess.


> Gunfire, mmm, don't know. Hand-held

Guns are getting smart. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30720528/...:

The U.S. Army is evaluating a scope that won’t let the user fire his or her rifle unless the shot is guaranteed. The SMASH scope is the product of Smart Shooter Ltd., an Israeli company, and could go on the Army’s upcoming replacements for the M4 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapon. The scope, or one like it, will eventually go on the Army's next generation squad automatic weapons.

(Company at https://www.smart-shooter.com/)


Are you Ukrainian yourself? If not then are foreigners able to travel to Ukraine/Kyiv currently via land do you know?


Yes, entry into UA is as normal.

You can't fly, no air traffic now.

Best way by far is the overnight train from Warsaw to Kyiv.


I hope you and your loved ones remain as safe as possible.

Just days before the recent renewed volley of missile strikes all over the country, I asked my uncle if it would be alright to take a similar route to come see them (from Poland to Lviv). My grandfather was recently evacuated from Mykolaiv after refusing to leave for a long time; I worry that I may not get to see him again if I don't go now, and also intended to stay a while and help at or near the Polish border as needed. My uncle said that it's a bad idea, and that there could still be missile strikes on Lviv. I didn't push it much, knowing they have enough to worry about without adding me to the mix. Just days after, Lviv was struck, proving him right.


Cities are huge. The chances of you being hit is nil. If you do come, you'll help the economy - your rent, your living costs - and the locals appreciate you being here.


I myself understand that and would still want to come, but I don't want to do it at the expense of causing more stress to my family over there. If I insisted on coming to see them now even after my uncle asked me not to, it would be selfish. My grandfather has already been through a ton of stress and illness; I don't want to stress him out about his grandchild possibly getting hurt visiting him on top of everything else. I plan to bring the idea up a bit later, and in the meantime I donate so those would-be living costs should go to the country anyway.


Same as me. When I take contracts now, the money goes to the military.


Are all services like card payments, 4G internet etc working for foreigners? Thinking of taking a trip to Kyiv some time in the future. Last time I visited in 2020 and loved the city.


Life here, as far as all the usual is concerned, is normal.

Internet runs just fine, I go swimming every other day to keep fit, supermarkets full of food. Metro runs, I think a few stations are still closed, though, although that could have been so before the war; I wouldn't know. Curfew at 11pm is the main difference. There's a bit of a question now about electricity, because Putin is trying to destroy the electricity supply, but you just gotta roll with these things.


Everything is mostly normal, you can still find 5000 euro bottles of Petrus in the (no longer 24 hour) supermarket.

Even the curfew feels more or less normal, it’s not too long ago they had the same for COVID.


alternative route would be via Przemyśl in poland and lviv


The overnight train from Warsaw takes that route, except it carries on to Kyiv.


> The first was unheralded, but for the second, first there was gunfire - I grabbed the camera and went to the window

I always remember this from my first hostile environment course. Top things not to do when you hear gunfire or explosions -- run to the nearest glass pane and look to see if you can see what's going on.

It's a natural reaction, but that window (and indeed wall) offers no protection from bullets, and an explosion can easily blow out a window and flying glass is not a good thing to be standing besides.


All absolutely true, but I think Kyiv is huge, I'm tiny, and the number of incoming missiles is small; I think it just won't happen. To my thought, it's worth that risk, for the benefit of seeing what happens so I can write about it.


"where I had the window open I felt the blast wave come to my face and body"

You're not just risking your own life, if you are injured because of your voyeurism you will be taking up Ukrainian medical resources that could be better spent.


I personally bear more risk crossing the roads during my stay here. Would you advise to stop doing so, to reduce the potential burden on the medical services?

As it is, I have private medical insurance, they're a business, I pay them, they provision their services, and provide that service.

As such, to my eye, even if I was taking significant risk, which I am not, it would not be an ethical matter, and even this is without any consideration to the benefits of writing about what's going on.


> I’m amazed at how slow the missile was. It was not rocket powered, but had an engine. I understand now how they can be shot down. There is time to aim and fire a missile.

These slower things are actually quite a challenge for systems designed to shoot down fast moving missiles, it’s easier to filter for unusually fast moving objects than slower ones.


You mentioned electrical infrastructure, is this their objective with these drone attacks?

It seems odd to be attacking Kyiv since it’s so far from any frontline. But I know nothing about these things.


Those attacks are pointless from military point of view. Their objective is to spread terror among civilians, since orcs can’t effectively fight against proper army.


Their objective is the targetting of specific individuals who are involved in the conflict, wherever they are.

Russia is showing that it has the intelligence reach to target those it wants to target.

It is the same sort of tactic that the US' and its allies uses in its wars on terror, with targetted drone killings.


> Their objective is the targetting of specific individuals who are involved in the conflict, wherever they are.

If they could target specific individuals they definitely would, just like Ukrainian forces killed many high ranking officers (including generals). The fact they don't is just proof they can't.


How do you know they're not targetting specific individuals? You don't actually know - but they do say they are specifically going after "those responsible for the terror attacks on Russia" ..

Note, I do not support Russia in this conflict - I am against all war, including ours! (West) But it is important to not mis-underestimate ones' enemy - and we don't know for sure that they aren't using the drones to target their terrorists - just like the USA has done, essentially every twenty minutes for the last twenty years.


I know, because it wouldn’t make any sense for them to do it - there aren’t any specific individuals they could target to make any difference to them - and they don’t have the capacity to. Comparing Russian army to American is just silly, and proves you’re not following the situation at all.

Once again - how do you explain Russia taking worst losses since WW2 and not being able to do anything about it, if they had any capacity to prevent it?


Russia, up to this point, has lacked in manpower, but has plenty of equipment (questionable quality, sure, but they do have it). Ukraine has had the opposite problem, but they've been receiving heavy training and equipment from NATO. Now that Ukraine has built up stockpiles and trained enough people they are mobilizing and retaking territory. However, with the Russian conscription underway, there's no saying if that momentum will continue.

Ukraine will still have an advantage in numbers, but if the war drags on too long they risk losing some political/material support, as the economic war has hit Europe especially hard (US support can/will probably continue indefinitely, though). There have already been many times in the past months when European leaders called for negotiations and ceasefire according to domestic political shifts, so I think this is a big "hidden" danger for UA.


I’m not sure about the “plenty of equipment”. Case in point - over the past six months there have been _ten_ Russian plane crashes caused by malfunctions. Even though they almost don’t use their aviation because of lack of air superiority.


What you’re saying is pure fantasy. Russia is hitting whatever they can, not any specific targets.

Generally speaking US, and now Ukraine, have precision guided weapons available. Russia doesn’t, because they lack technology.


This point of view is agitprop. You don't know they are not targetting individuals with the drones - but it serves your desires to assume otherwise. The USA also uses drone attacks against terrorists - do you think those are always 100% accurate, also?


Just curious I heard that radar guided AA guns are suitable to shoot these things down. Is it true or myth?



Isn’t it obvious you should leave that city if there are rockets falling from the sky? And Kyiv would be target #1 for a nuclear strike. Why don’t you run?


NATO should realize that the Iran drone has a range of 2 k km. and should supply Ukraine with > 300 km equipment ( the limit for international missles)


Can you go into more details about the limit?


This should give you some more information:

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2021/m...


My newspaper says that the attacks were by Iranian kamikaze drones, so that would explain why they're slower and possibly less powerful.

These recent attacks are sickening. I don't see what Putin is trying to accomplish with them, except for making people hate him even more. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction that would use to justify further escalation on his part. The problem is, his only options for further escalation would be full mobilisation or nuclear weapons, and I think both would work out very badly for him. The Russian people wouldn't accept full mobilisation (see how they're reacting to partial mobilisation!), and NATO will definitely step in once nukes are used.

There seems to be no way out for Putin except giving up or this sort of random destruction. He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants.

Please be safe out there.


>He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants

It can be tempting to cast one's enemies as irrational actors, but one should be careful to entertain the possibility that they are behaving rationally within constraints you don't fully understand. Indeed, anger itself is a game theoretical adaptation.

In this instance, my view is that Ukraine and its massive untapped gas reserves represented a serious threat to Russia's business model. Annexation would have been preferable, but as that is proving impossible, the next best thing is to destroy Ukraine as thoroughly as possible to prevent Europe from gaining access to an independent supply.


The most level headed and logical response I’ve seen regarding this conflict. It always comes down to money.


I coud be utterly wrong, but I do not think the motives are so rational.

I think the motives are cultural : this is what Russia has done over the course of its entire existence, and it continues to this day. There is simply a culture of territorial expansionism, with whatever justifications are handy at the time; that old saying - there's a good reason, and then there's the real reason.


It can be tempting to cast irrational actors as coldly logical, but if one does so one should be careful to infer actually logical motives.

Attacking Kyiv doesn't really make a difference to whether the West can access Ukraine's natural resources. Even attacking infrastructure, whole far more logical, would really only have a temporary impact. Insofar as the west actually needs those resources, then it will deploy its own immense infrastructure to get at them.

So, Putin's actions are only logical if he is also successfully attacking power structures of the west, to convince them that it is better to buy from Russia than deploy the capability to get at those resources. We could argue whether such attacks are happening but they don't appear to be working.


Also, the fact that Russia is refusing to sell gas to the EU because of its support for Ukraine rather undermines this point. (I think it's the EU that should be refusing to buy gas from Russia in order to stop funding the Russian war machine, but it's interesting that both sides don't want to trade right now.)

If Russia really wanted to prevent Ukraine or the EU from having access to resources in Donbas or Crimea, shouldn't they be using their current control over those areas to ruin/destroy those resources or make them harder to access?


> He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants.

I think that is an overly simplistic interpretation.

The larger context to consider here is other countries that are loyal/controlled/influenced by Russia, the ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia. Russia's inability to defeat Ukraine is showing them that they can move away from Russia of soften their alignment and go against the Kremlin's influences. Kazakhstan has rejected the referenda annexing Ukrainian territory and Kyrgyzstan has canceled joint military exercises with Russia.

Therefore Russia wants to signal that it still can project destructive power abroad both directly, with strikes on civilians deep in Ukraine, and indirectly. By attacking civilians and ignoring the usual norms & law of war (which is usual for Russia anyway), Russia is reminding people that it doesn't care about such things as civilians and therefore the talk of using nuclear weapons should be taken seriously.

Basically Russia is reminding us that it is a bully who doesn't care about your feelings.

Internally, whilst Putin holds almost ultimate power, this still requires a loyal network of supporters who run the country's government and businesses. He needs to keep the tough man image that he has cultivated and relies on for power. Showing any weakness begins his eventual downfall. Which is one reason why blaming and sacking top military: to show his power of them.

Lastly, humans tend to be less risk adverse when cornered and Putin is getting cornered by these factors and more. That makes him more likely to try harsher tactics in order to save himself. We've seen this recently with the conscription, bombings, propaganda and increasing the murders and forced deportations in captured territory. He will become more unpredictable and I fear things will get much worse before they get better.


In all of this horror, it is the forced deportations which trouble me most.

Hundreds of thousands of people, forceably transported into Russia.

Where are those people now? what is happening to them? how are they going to get back to Ukraine?

Russia historically, in conquered countries, destroys the local culture. Cyrillic and Russian become mandatory in the schools, organizations and traditions of local culture are suppressed, and mass deportations and incarcerations. Also, of course, beatings and torture; all of which we see now.

To my eye, as in history, this is part of Russia looking to make Ukraine actually Russian; to conquer and subsume.

The Poles used to say they preferred the Germans to the Russians; "with the Germans we lose our freedom, with the Russians we lose our souls".


>Where are those people now?

Children have been told their parents abandoned them, and given to russian families.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1581364032019132416

https://twitter.com/biz_ukraine_mag/status/15710832493253140...


I'm terrified for those deportees. People (including me) keep saying that Putin can have peace simply by leaving Ukraine, but simply leaving Ukraine doesn't bring those deported people back. You bet he's going to use them as some sort of leverage. Or just kill them if they become a liability.

I really hope they'll be able to return, but I fear that might end up requiring some concessions to Putin.


Well, the option he's heading towards is loosing, and I don't think he can change that, only defer it.

The partial mobilization is a band-aid; it won't make the Russian army effective (let alone the air force, or the navy). I suspect these guys are just being thrown in at the deep end. They're doing to die, and not do very much in the process. The main goal is to keep something in the field, so the Ukrainians don't just walk to the border because all the short-term contract troops have gone home.

Building a real army takes at least a year; the Ukrainian are working on this, via mass training programs in European countries, and here in the Ukraine. The guy who organizes my AirBnB is in an infantry training programme; when he picks up the rent, I give him a huge shopping back stuffed with chocolate for his unit.

Then there's the question of equipping and supplying that army. Ukraine has the arsenals of the West behind it, and ultimately the military strength of a country is its economic strength. Putin's underestimation of the power of the West is as great as that power is proving to be.

I've no idea if Russia is also working on property training new units. It seems somewhat questionable - training in Russia is performed by the stay-at-home batallion (each regiment is three batallions, two are normally deployed, one stays at home), but a lot of those stays-at-home batallions have been deployed. If you just throw people in at the deep end, if they do survive, they have experience, but little training. No good for more complex operations, such as offensives.

However, the troops anyway to my eye have no motivation for offensives. Some units are just brutual thugs, killers, torturers and maimers; others are conscripts, and the army as a whole knows perfectly well they were thoroughly lied to and sent into the battle in the worst possible ways, tactically and strategically, and are paying with their lives.

This is why there's so much reliance on artillery; it just sits there, behind your lines, so you can control it, and the men firing the pieces, and all they have to do is put shells in a gun and fire.

I don't think Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon, because it just won't do very much to the battle; they are surprisingly ineffective on dispersed troops. Even to use one will turn the world against him, and he would have to use a lot. Putin would have to build a new army from scratch, with so much strength it could overwhelm the Ukraine supported by the West, and that is not possible.

I hate being in a situation where I have to even think about whether or a nuclear weapon will be used. Putin has a lot to answer for.


I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you state, and because it's putting more stress at all the weaknesses of the Russian military: logistics, command and control, and morale.

Those people need to be moved to the front, more food, ammo and fuel needs to be moved to the front, and Russia is already struggling with logistics. Their command and control seems to be a mess with Wagner and the militias operating independently from the Russian army, which is short on officers, and each branch blaming each other for all the failures. Adding more untrained troops is not going to improve that situation. The impact on morale is probably obvious.

Best thing to do with those conscripts would probably be to put them in trucks and let them drive more stuff to the front. Or in factories to make more stuff.

Best thing strategically for him would probably be to withdraw from all those recently "annexed" regions and bet everything on keeping Crimea. And negotiate a deal to trade all of that land for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. I think Crimea is really the best thing Putin can possibly get out of this war. And even that is hardly certain.


I've heard that the mobilized people are used as a sort of early-warning meatshield for the more veteran forces by from an intercepted call by Ukrainian SIGINT (ofc veracity cannot be independently confirmed), which gels with Russian BTG tactics as known to US defence before the 2022 invasion[0].

[0] "Defeating the Russian Battalion Tactical Group" https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... (warning PDF link)


Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win.

One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.


I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it.

I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.


> One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.

Interesting perspective, and it makes sense. There's probably less shame in losing to the most powerful alliance in the world, than losing to a former vassal.

This might actually increase the chance of him using tactical nukes; that's the surefire way to get NATO involved. But ideally he'll want to lose just barely to NATO; he doesn't want to get completely destroyed. That's probably why he's escalating one small step at a time.


I’m not sure if using nukes would get NATO directly involved. First, it would be counterproductive wrt Putin’s goal above. Second, it could provoke strikes against NATO - Russia stands no chance militarily, but they can still kill civilians. Third, I don’t think isn’t even necessary - looking at experiences so far, Ukraine is more than capable of wiping the floor with Russian army, provided they get the hardware necessary. So far NATO has been very (way too much imho) careful to only provide Ukraine with defensive weapons; they didn’t give them cruise missiles or fighter jets, for example. Likewise Ukraine so far avoided striking anything that’s not strictly a military target. Nuclear strike would probably change that.


I don't think there's any way NATO can afford not to respond to the offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest, just outside their borders, against a friendly nation. But as long as it's a small, tactical nuke, I think NATO's response will be conventional, but still big enough to cripple all Russian positions in Ukraine, and possibly more.


This is basically what General Petraeus said would happen.


This is simply not true. Russia withdrew its regular army months ago - whats fighting now are non-regular forces (mercenaries, etc.) in order to keep the battlefield 'soft' while the next offensive is being planned.

Its not good to believe ones own propaganda, and we in the West are extremely propagandized about this action. Russia hasn't applied the full forces of its war machines to Ukraine - yet. Its a "special military operation" because Putin is limited by Russia's democracy as to what he can apply.

Escalating to actual war policies is whats happening right now. Once the ground freezes in Ukraine (within the next few weeks), there will be another round of attacks from Russia - this time, with all the 'terrorist attacks on the Russian state', Putins' gloves will be coming off. We in the West don't understand that what we incorrectly perceive as a "failed military invasion" is really just the first round in a 'special military operation' that has to scale up to war before Russia's full war machine is activated. We want to believe it was a failed full-blown war - the truth is, its just the beginning ..


> Russia withdrew its regular army months ago

Strange. As far as rest of the world knows, Ukraine fought a spectacular counteroffensive against Russia's elite tank division (4th Guards) near Izyum just a few weeks ago, took many of them prisoners and captured 100 or so of their best tanks and hundreds of APCs.


That was hardly a decisive victory, and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.

Its a "special military operation", meaning Putin is limited as to what he can order into the field. Now that he has the justification of "terrorist attacks on Russia", he can escalate - and this is precisely what is about to happen. When the ground freezes in Ukraine, an even more lethal Russian force will be applied to what is now more of a war and less of a 'special operation'.

Me saying this does not mean I agree with it - I find all of it heinous. But those of you addicted to your Western propaganda need to understand that it is very, very dangerous to suck up your own agitprop and consider it the one Holy Truth™. You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...


> That was hardly a decisive victory

Of course it was, Kupiansk is a very important railway junction[1] and the whole front collapsed after it was captured. Speed of the operation was nothing short of amazing. In mere days Ukraine liberated more than Russia had captured in months of heavy fighting with insane losses, worst since WW2. In large parts of Ukraine's northeast, Russia was pushed back to state border and there is virtually no fighting anymore beyond sporadic Russian revenge attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. This is dictionary definition of a decisive victory. Russian forces have left the Sumy-Kharkiv region and the fighting over Ukraine's north-east has finished.

[1] https://d1c4d7gnm6as1q.cloudfront.net/Pictures/web/c/e/b/ukr...

> and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.

Why are police officers dragging pilots from airliner cockpits[2] and sending as cannon fodder to the frontlines if there is no desperate shortage of manpower? Why is Putin's right-hand man touring prisons to recruit rapists and murderers?[3] The clock is ticking on Kherson and it is only a question of time when Ukraine will liberate it, Ukraine already conducted a successful limited operation and liberated a lot of ground north of Kherson. Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?

[2] https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1580907603101896704

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/20/russia-recruit...

> You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...

I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?


>Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?

Because Putin doesn't have the power to do such a thing: he is not a dictator, Western agitprop notwithstanding.

Same reason Bush had to invent a phony "war on terror" excuse to get around the requirement that he get - democratically - Congress' permission to declare war on the world.

>I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?

The Russians themselves. You probably don't have access to their statements, though .. or haven't tried very hard to find them yourself.

This was a "special military operation" because Putins Presidency is not a total dictatorship. Conditions for declaring total war were not in place - they are now, however. The West likes to think this "special military operation" represents the totality of Russian military power being applied - and failing - but this is a very, very dangerous mistake to make.


>The Russians themselves.

Ah. Now I suspect I know what you're talking about: the terror campaign. Essentially what Russia did in Syria - they don't stand a chance against a proper army, but they definitely can commit genocide and level entire cities, like they did in Mariupol.

So, yes, indeed, they are starting to do it again. But because they have already spent most of the tools they could use to do it - we know that because they are forced to use very expensive weapons in a way that doesn't make any sense, like attacking ground targets using anti-ship missiles - it will quickly fizzle out. They got one last push using Iranian ghetto-drones, but even those are in limited quantity - all of this stuff depends on western parts.


[flagged]


>clueless tankie.

Keep your hate-filled agit-prop to yourself and try to stay rational. I'm not rooting for Russia - I'm trying to indicate you are in danger of mis-underestimating your enemy - a fatal mistake to make!

I'm not mentioning "terrorist attacks on Russian state" because I agree that thats what they are - I am 100% anti-war, no matter who is fighting it - but that is what Russia's democratic process requires in order to authorize an escalation of its "special military operation" to a broader war-fighting stance. In precisely the same way that the USA needed terrorist attacks to justify its own special military operations around the world, Russia has the very same condition in its own democratic processes - and whether you like it or not, Russia is just as democratic as the USA - they just don't vote for people you like.

Whether you agree or not, Russia has not applied the full forces of its military to this "special operation" - this will happen in the next few weeks, now that the political conditions within Russia are in place to authorize the use of such force. You don't really think Putin can just dictate that a war happen - just like the USA, Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.

Know Your Enemy! Putins' hands have been tied thus far - once the gloves come off, you might change your mind about Russia's weaknesses ...


You say they haven't applied the full force of its military, but considering how spent the Russian forces are, it's not at all clear that Russia really has significantly more forces that can be used. Other than nukes, of course.

> Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.

The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition. But you're right that his power isn't absolute; no power ever is. If too many Russians rebel against him, his security apparatus won't save him. On top of that, he needs to keep the support of the military, Wagner, the nationalist, and various other groups, and if he loses that support, he's also lost. So he has to be careful and ensure he keeps sufficient domestic justification for what he does.


>how spent the Russian forces are

How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation, Western agitprop notwithstanding.

>The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition.

At least as democratic as the West.

He has not had the power he needs to field a full war-fighting force - only "special military operations" capabilities. The longer this war goes on, the more justification ("Ma' Terrorists!") he has to pull off the gloves.

3 weeks from now, we will see what that looks like. I'd wager its going to be a much different scenario than the current "special military operation".

(NOTE: I am not pro-Russia - I am 100% anti-war.. ALL war, including our own heinous drone attacks on civilians...)


That post is the wrongest thing I've read this week. It's so wrong I don't know where to start.

We shall see in three weeks who is correct.

When the gloves come off, lol.

The pants have already fallen down... might as well take the gloves off too.


>How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation

This is in stark contrast to what analysts are saying, which is that Russia already _lost_ about half of its military. Visually confirmed losses of Russian tanks alone are over one thousand units. Russians are so desperate they had to introduce mandatory conscription, despite it being a suicide from political point of view.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you hadn’t provided a single source that would support your view.

>as democratic as West

Lol, no. Russia isn’t even a dysfunctional democracy; it lacks basic prerequisites to become one. You’re probably imagining Russia is kind of like Eastern Europe, only poorer. It’s not - the "cultural distance” between Russia and, say, Poland is much greater then between Poland and, say, UK.


Analysts - on TV - are telling you what to think: because its their job to spread propaganda and make the general public think what is necessary for the Pentagon to get its wishes.

Make the effort to get past the propaganda wall and you will see a much different picture.

Paul Stephan agreed that there is a distinction between democracy and liberalism in Russia: "Russia enjoys robust democratic institutions at least as vigorous as Japan, Korea, Italy, France, and Germany."

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/putin-and-the-russi...


Frankly, you could watch the Russian propaganda and get a less absurdly rosy picture of Russian performance in the war than the one you're painting...


The other side is always propaganda, and our side is always the truth: got it.


No, but if the other side's official state media is admitting that they might have screwed up mass conscription in their desperate haste whilst nationalist bloggers fume about military defeats and the government threatening them for reporting on them, whilst you're arguing things are going smoothly for them and the reason they're losing territory they now claim to be Russia's is because they casually withdrew their 85% of their army for unexplained "democratic" reasons, you have no interest in truth.


Maybe you're only paying attention to the narrative that suits your prejudice.

Fact: it was a "special military operation" - this is not the same as an all-out war/invasion. Putins' hands were tied as to what he could deploy - the West has successfully used its propaganda outlets to parley this as 'Russia military is a fail'. That conclusion is premature - when Russia fields a full war force, the story may be different.

Fact: The army was withdrawn to prevent further civilian casualties in the regions that have already suffered 8 years of catastrophic war, involving the massacre of civilians by armed forces.

As to your appeal to authority figures on TV, I can only assume you are unwilling to make an effort to look further than the idiot box for information, and are therefore not really arguing in good faith. I suggest you peak around the curtains and try not to get distracted by the broken mirrors ..


The idea that they withdrew from lightly populated Kharkiv and northern Kherson regions they occupied to new positions in the cities to "protect civilians" is ... inventive.

As to your severe reading comprehension difficulties, if you're having to pretend that I'm talking about "authority figures on TV" when I'm pointing out that Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media aren't as enthusiastic about Russia's war as you are, it's not because your cliche ridden contrarianism is coming from a place of actual knowledge...


>Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media

"actual knowledge"

Anyone can pretend to be a Russian nationalist on Telegram, and Russian state media is not as "Russian state" as you'd like to think.

Perhaps your call-to-authority proclivity should result in you paying actual attention to what the Russian generals, themselves, are saying - not that you would have access to that in the current censorship regime you seem to be particularly enamoured of ..


Which Russian generals? I mean, Kadryov and Prizoghin whose factions are doing much of the fighting are quite openly accusing the military of cowardice and incompetence (maybe they're Western agents too?). Lapin's too busy making PR videos proving that he is not, in fact, hiding from the war and mourning his son's sad loss due to mutinying conscripts (recruiting people who'd rather suicide massacre their comrades than fight in the war is a sure sign Russia is holding back all their best troops!) Then there's numerous ones who've been dismissed from their posts? Not an awful lot about the mythical million well trained troops with excellent equipment who are somehow more politically difficult to mobilise than middle class middle aged Muscovites who did their national service for the USSR and Belarussian T62s

If you're having to disregard Russian media and all the most popular Russian milbloggers and the guy who started the Donbas conflict as Western propagandists to satisfy your dreams of dead Ukranians, maybe it's not everyone else in the world that's wearing blinkers....


Thats good. Im also helping Ukraine as much as I can. I've sent one 4x4 and donated money to the Army. I am also training in the volunteer paramilitary in my country in case Russian people and their Putin wants even bigger piece of the pie in the future and they need to be stopped again.

Do you happen to know how the leases and loans for the man and women serving under mobilisation in the UA army are treated. Are the payments stopped for the war?


Я тоже проснулся сегодня от. :(


Будильник Путина.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: