Russian invasion of Ukraine

[The Stormbringer]

Except that ya know, that's illegal in all but the most gun-friendly states. If there is no active threat from an invader, the burden on the homeowner on killing them is extremely high. That's why squatters are a problem. You can't just walk into your house and shoot them.

Except that ya know, normally home invaders and squatters don't declare their intention to murder you and take your stuff before they move onto your property. This is nothing like squatters, or even people breaking in to steal your shit. This is people coming, by force, clearly stating what they're wanting to do, and putting your life at risk simply by being there.

EDIT: I just re-read the post you were replying to. I think their analogy here is very inaccurate. This isn't like a typical home invader situation at all, it's far worse.

[zealo]

If you don't understand how PR works you can just say so.


The Russians have a long way to go to be Nazis, who set the bar pretty fucking high.


Except that ya know, that's illegal in all but the most gun-friendly states. If there is no active threat from an invader, the burden on the homeowner on killing them is extremely high. That's why squatters are a problem. You can't just walk into your house and shoot them.

I'm not critiquing the legitimacy. I'm critiquing the optics. Only assholes like Cynical here (hey mods, it's not an insult! It's in their username!) cheer for slaughtering soldiers standing around doing nothing.

Anyone that thinks there's an "optics problem" with indirect fire on groups of enemy soldiers loitering around hasn't really paid a whole lot of attention to how this war is being fought in general.

[Jastall]

If you don't understand how PR works you can just say so.


The Russians have a long way to go to be Nazis, who set the bar pretty fucking high.


Except that ya know, that's illegal in all but the most gun-friendly states. If there is no active threat from an invader, the burden on the homeowner on killing them is extremely high. That's why squatters are a problem. You can't just walk into your house and shoot them.

I'm not critiquing the legitimacy. I'm critiquing the optics. Only assholes like Cynical here (hey mods, it's not an insult! It's in their username!) cheer for slaughtering soldiers standing around doing nothing.

Here's how everyone will react to this;

Ukrainians: yay more dead russians, have a vodka on me boys.

Russians: Deny it happened, then cope/seethe/mald. Don't invade people if you don't want your soldiers to die.

US: will say, thanks for advertising our area denial solutions!

Entire rest of the world: foreigners getting killed somewhere? Sucks to be them.

[Gabriel]

If you don't understand how PR works you can just say so.


The Russians have a long way to go to be Nazis, who set the bar pretty fucking high.


Except that ya know, that's illegal in all but the most gun-friendly states. If there is no active threat from an invader, the burden on the homeowner on killing them is extremely high. That's why squatters are a problem. You can't just walk into your house and shoot them.

I'm not critiquing the legitimacy. I'm critiquing the optics. Only assholes like Cynical here (hey mods, it's not an insult! It's in their username!) cheer for slaughtering soldiers standing around doing nothing.

This is the Pearl-clutchiest take I've seen all year. The only regrettable thing about this was that they didn't get more Vatniks with single rocket.

Those soldiers were not doing nothing. They were actively participating in an invasion. What's next, don't bomb the invaders at night since they are sleeping? Give me a break.

[Rustedsaint]

Oh how horrible, all those russian commanders needs to have a big meeting in the occupied territories to discuss what went wrong here.

[Poopymonster]

100 targets eliminated with 1 missile sounds like good PR to me. These are people who will no longer be manning their arty or their vehicles blowing up my tax dollars, instead my tax dollars blew them up. It means less Ukraine soldiers dying. Like how is this bad PR?

You wanna talk about PR?
"One missile, 100 of 100 killed, 100% efficiency, all this can be yours for the low low price of...."

[The Stormbringer]

Oh how horrible, all those russian commanders needs to have a big meeting in the occupied territories to discuss what went wrong here.

Yeah, but just make sure it only has the volunteer forces, not the forces that were strong-armed/drafted into it. They're just going to be used as fodder anyway, so the commanders don't need to inform them.

[Corvus]

They had been gathered together by their commanders to give them a speech right before they were to start an assault on Ukrainian positions. How on earth can that be bad PR?

[Edge-]

They had been gathered together by their commanders to give them a speech right before they were to start an assault on Ukrainian positions. How on earth can that be bad PR?

"You just killed too many valid targets at once during an active war, that's just not very sportsmanlike!"

[gondrin]

They had been gathered together by their commanders to give them a speech right before they were to start an assault on Ukrainian positions. How on earth can that be bad PR?

Only in the minds of some Russians and posters is it bad PR. Otherwise, the rest of the world is cheering at the fact that the Russian military would have trouble beating a bunch of pacifists with how inept they are.

[zealo]

"You just killed too many valid targets at once during an active war, that's just not very sportsmanlike!"

This is largely what the pearl clutching seems to boil down to, really.

Russia has been lobbing well north of 20,000+ artillery shells a day in this war, bad optics for targeting them with HIMARS in return, like what?

[YUPPIE]

The logic the Russian milbloggers have made is Ukrainians killed people that weren't doing anything at that moment and they should be condemned for it, as well as making sarcastic remarks how stupid those soldiers were.

Albeit, even the Russian bloggers condemned the soldiers for being stupid.

[gondrin]

The logic the Russian milbloggers have made is Ukrainians killed people that weren't doing anything at that moment and they should be condemned for it, as well as making sarcastic remarks how stupid those soldiers were.

Albeit, even the Russian bloggers condemned the soldiers for being stupid.

The only people that are stupid are the military commanders that decided to hold a speech with troops involved in the middle of an active warzone and not expecting an attack. The soldiers were just following orders and probably weren't told anything else. I swear, Russian Military leadership has killed more troops with their decisions then Ukraine has.

[Elder Millennial]

Ukrainians killed people that weren't doing anything at that moment.

That's a dumbass argument. They were active duty troops, actively occupying Ukrainian sovereign territory. They were double doing "something".

- - - Updated - - -

Only assholes cheer for slaughtering soldiers standing around doing nothing.

Interesting choice of words there buddy..."slaughtering".

How about killing enemy invaders actively occupying part of the country, preparing for future combat maneuvers.

Drop them pearls there buddy.

[Azadina]

This is the "Nuking the Naval Review" problem. It is an absolutely legitimate target, but it's got PR issues, no matter how justified (or not) your cause is. Winning is important for Ukraine, yes, but poor choice of targets can turn public sentiment very easily, even if those targets are legitimate. Approval of Russia is low, even internally, even among the military, approval of the Ukraine is currently high pretty much everywhere. Russia doesn't need good PR internally or externally, so there's no need to give them an excuse to get some. Ukraine on the other hand is heavily reliant on outside forces thinking highly of them, and they can't afford to lose that.

I'm not saying it was an illegal target. Just a poorly chosen one.

And that approval is soaring even higher with strikes like the one you're complaining about. Couple HIMARS rockets for hundreds of terroruZZkies is fantastic results, in every way. Did you also complain back when they blasted a RuZZki barracks with HIMARS? They got multiple hundreds of terroruZZkies with that one.

[Corvus]

Ukrainian pilots have started training on F16s reportedly. Hopefully they have ground crews doing the same as that is a major part of getting F16s to Ukraine - western jets are a lot more maintenance intensive than the Soviet ones.

And inspections of the retired Australian FA18s is being undertaken, to see if they are usable for the Ukrainians. It'd be good if they could get both - while the F16 is the better fighter, the FA18 is more rugged, lower maintenance and more suited for short, rough airfields. Or roads. Australia has around 41 that retired just a couple of years back when they got the F35.

And another good read over at Daily Kos about what is going on - so far Ukraine has committed only 3 of its 12 'Storm' brigades, the western trained and equipped ones. And those 3 are light mechanised infantry, not the heavy armoured brigades, which will be sued to brief the main defensive lines.

However, the russians are not being smart. Again. Rather than pull back and defend at the main defensive line, they keep feeding more and more reserves into the region in front of the defensive lines where they are dying much easier than if they were in the defensive positions.

[Kokolums]

Technically, this isnt a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once they finish off Ukraine, Russia is invading Poland. This is actually a Russian invasion of Europe. That's why Russia hasn't declared war and is fighting with just a fraction of its full power. For the moment, Russia is trying to cause a stalemate that weakens NATO's resolve. The idea is once NATO stops funding and arming Ukraine, then Russia runs Ukraine over.

There is some rumbling in NATO that they will have to put NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine to avoid that. But that's a double-edged sword.

1. If NATO doesn't insert their own troops, this is likely to be a stalemate and NATO loses its resolve.
2. If NATO inserts their own troops, they will hammer Russia, but then NATO citizens will start to ask why are their kids dying over there and anti-war sentiment will bloom.

[Deus Mortis]

The logic the Russian milbloggers have made is Ukrainians killed people that weren't doing anything at that moment and they should be condemned for it, as well as making sarcastic remarks how stupid those soldiers were.

Albeit, even the Russian bloggers condemned the soldiers for being stupid.

I wonder if that is how they feel when Russia kills actual innocent people in apartment complexes with their expensive missiles. Those bloggers can fuck off with their bullshit take.

Technically, this isnt a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once they finish off Ukraine, Russia is invading Poland. This is actually a Russian invasion of Europe. That's why Russia hasn't declared war and is fighting with just a fraction of its full power. For the moment, Russia is trying to cause a stalemate that weakens NATO's resolve. The idea is once NATO stops funding and arming Ukraine, then Russia runs Ukraine over.

It is still an invasion of Ukraine. What fraction of their full power? Cause they sure as hell are burning through everything. Lol at the take of trying to weaken NATO's resolve. All they have done is strengthen NATO as well as Europe while gutting their stockpile of heavy armor, their arty, as well as numerous of their missile defense systems. NATO won't be stopping funding anytime soon. There is a lot of money in Ukraine land and Western forces would very much like a part of it while shutting out China/Russia from getting it.

[Calfredd]

Technically, this isnt a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once they finish off Ukraine, Russia is invading Poland. This is actually a Russian invasion of Europe. That's why Russia hasn't declared war and is fighting with just a fraction of its full power. For the moment, Russia is trying to cause a stalemate that weakens NATO's resolve. The idea is once NATO stops funding and arming Ukraine, then Russia runs Ukraine over.

And once they're done with Europe they, with the help of Republicans, will take over and make the U.S. into a puppet state after the 2nd civil war.

[Edge-]

Technically, this isnt a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once they finish off Ukraine, Russia is invading Poland. This is actually a Russian invasion of Europe.

I...don't think a nation that's having to pull out mothballed hardware and draft soldiers has some super secret advanced fighting force just waiting in the wings.

That's why Russia hasn't declared war and is fighting with just a fraction of its full power.

Do nations draft soldiers when fighting with a fraction of their powers? Take out decades-old hardware to put themselves at a technological disadvantage?

What nations throughout history do you reckon have fought this way and been successful?

For the moment, Russia is trying to cause a stalemate that weakens NATO's resolve. The idea is once NATO stops funding and arming Ukraine, then Russia runs Ukraine over.

NATO nations economies are in far better shape than Russia's economy is, so I wouldn't bank on that, exactly.

They are on day 476 of their "3-day Special Operation to Denazify Ukraine" which they've totally given up the whole denazification pretext by now. Do you reckon that's a sign of a powerhouse military that would stand a chance even against "just" European nations and their respective militaries?