How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Bearstronaut said:

Yamamoto's obsession with the US carrier force after the raid led to the badly planned Midway operation and the destruction of most of the Kido Butai.

Might want to reword that a bit. He was already very aware of the danger of the Carriers.  He had to focus on them because they weren't hit at Pearl harbor. Plans for that task already existed and were the logical follow-on to PH. 

And Doolittle didn't lead to the destruction of the Mobile Force. In many,  many ways Midway could have easily,  easily been a crushing Japanese victory. The raid on Tokyo had zero practical effect on Midway.

Damn you,  the Pacific War,  and your siren call! 

[Kraft]

Regardless if terror bombing works (nuclear does)..

I dont think any target, even if purely military, makes it worth to risk goodwill and clear perceived moral high ground in the supporting nations. 

With debris and such, its just bad luck until a drone wreck crashes into a family car/.. there are hardly targets worth risking that image damage.

Im sure those drones could have hit another oil depot somewhere in Russia and done more

Edited May 30, 2023 by Kraft

[Butschi]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

Russia terror bombs Ukraine for over a year

 

 

Moscow gets hit by a handful of small drones causing limited damage and no reported casualties. 

OMFG don't they know the allied terror bombings were a failure!!!

 

Gatekeeping again?

Anyway you are making my point for me: Russia has been trying to terror bomb Ukraine into submission for over a year now. What did they gain? Nothing. So what's wrong with telling Ukraine right from the start that the attempt is futile? Not that they are likely to listen to anyone here, no matter what...

[Butschi]

2 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I dont think any target, even if purely military, makes it worth to risk goodwill and clear perceived moral high ground in the supporting nations. 

With debris and such, its just bad luck until a drone wreck crashes into a family car/.. there are hardly targets worth risking that image damage.

This.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Butschi

[Artkin]

Ah yes the doolittle raids. Not one of our prouder moments. 

[kimbosbread]

5 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Ah yes the doolittle raids. Not one of our prouder moments. 

Disagree. From a moral perspective it’s very powerful- witness the absolute butthurt from the Russians right now.

Nice side effect, as someone pointed out a few days ago- drones over Moscow and Belgorod People’s Republic give the West a window into what happens if they stop supporting Ukraine in a direct war to remove Russia from Ukraine proper.

[sburke]

18 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Gatekeeping again?

Anyway you are making my point for me: Russia has been trying to terror bomb Ukraine into submission for over a year now. What did they gain? Nothing. So what's wrong with telling Ukraine right from the start that the attempt is futile? Not that they are likely to listen to anyone here, no matter what...

yeah no.  Actually, making a different point.  The psychological effect on Moscow is reflected in your reaction.  Ergo for Ukraine - mission accomplished.

This wasn't a terror bombing.  The residential buildings weren't "attacked" rather the drones collided with them. The explosives didn't detonate.  Whatever the target was, it wasn't civilians.  So unless you are saying Ukraine has no legitimate reason to target locations in Moscow, I don't get your point other than.  "Oh my god the Ukrainians did... whatever ... " the freakout is now.

[DesertFox]

Some good stuff on its way...

 

 

[Butschi]

8 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

drones over Moscow and Belgorod People’s Republic give the West a window into what happens if they stop supporting Ukraine in a direct war to remove Russia from Ukraine proper.

And what would the West see through that window? Less drones over Moscow and Belgorod? Sorry, I'm honestly confused.

[billbindc]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

You have correctly identified why it didn't work in the past.  A unified population, either voluntarily (like British and Ukrainian civilians) or through brainwashing/fear (WW2 Germany or North Korea), will not be shaken by such attacks.  If anything, it will reinforce their unity.

This is *not* the case in Russia.  The population is fractured and under great stress.  The political apparatus governing them is also becoming more obviously in turmoil with various factions undermining each other.  The common element is the war is not going well and both the population and the power blocs know it.

A better example to look at is Serbia being bombed to stop the war in Kosovo.  It worked because the conditions within Serbia were precarious.  The Serbian power structure understood that the population was not going to support mass murder in Kosovo at the expense of their own lives and comfort.

This could be true, but it is not what is likely in this case.  Ukraine is never going to do a widespread or large scale campaign, therefore the amount of death and destruction will be minimal.  The major thing the population is going to experience is the sense that they are vulnerable, not grieving for the dead.

The thinking is that the majority of the affluent/educated Russians are more apathetic than supportive.  They are the ones that the various power blocs have to be the most concerned about as we're talking about major metro areas like St. Petersburg and Moscow.  Whatever passive or active opposition there might be is located in these areas.

Besides from the domestic morale boost to Ukraine, these attacks are likely a message to the affluent/educated that things can get worse than losing their jobs or not being able to vacation in Spain.  If it is managed correctly this group will make noise in a way that the power blocs will respond in some way that is not good for Putin's regime.

In short, Ukraine is attempting to do delicate surgery on the Russian political system, not brute force terror like what Russia and previous bombing campaigns have done.  It's a big difference.

Steve

The pith: Russia is not a mobilized state like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany and is not fighting a declared war. It sold the conflict with the idea that it was a 'special military  operation' that wouldn't impinge on the day to day lives of an apathetic population. A large drone attack on Moscow isn't a military move, it is directly undercutting the regime's credibility on the war. This was Girkin's immediate reaction as well.

 

[Butschi]

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

The residential buildings weren't "attacked" rather the drones collided with them.

I didn't claim they were, just that it would be pointless and stupid if they were, not to mention a war crime. And do you know those buildings weren't the actual target? The fact that the explosives didn't detonate can have any number of reasons (the smartest being just sending the message that they could have detonated). And even if the buildings weren't the target, how do you know, other residential buildings weren't the target? Flat out rejecting even the possibility is a bit premature.

[kimbosbread]

25 minutes ago, Butschi said:

And what would the West see through that window? Less drones over Moscow and Belgorod? Sorry, I'm honestly confused.

A low-intensity conflict that will last a long time, cause tremendous problems on NATO’s flank and have a large surface area for China to exploit. The better, more organized future is to help Ukraine win the war this year and next, so we can get on with the South China Sea.

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I didn't claim they were, just that it would be pointless and stupid if they were, not to mention a war crime. And do you know those buildings weren't the actual target? The fact that the explosives didn't detonate can have any number of reasons (the smartest being just sending the message that they could have detonated). And even if the buildings weren't the target, how do you know, other residential buildings weren't the target? Flat out rejecting even the possibility is a bit premature.

flat out going off as if this was the London terror bombing reborn is a mite bit premature as well.

[akd]

At least one of the drones appears to have just glided down into an open field without kinetic interference, so between AD intercepts and possible guidance jamming, it will be difficult to say what was an intended target.

[Butschi]

9 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

A low-intensity conflict that will last a long time, cause tremendous problems on NATO’s flank and have a large surface area for China to exploit. The better, more organized future is to help Ukraine win the war this year and next, so we can get on with the South China Sea.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[Harmon Rabb]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

The pith: Russia is not a mobilized state like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany and is not fighting a declared war. It sold the conflict with the idea that it was a 'special military  operation' that wouldn't impinge on the day to day lives of an apathetic population. A large drone attack on Moscow isn't a military move, it is directly undercutting the regime's credibility on the war. This was Girkin's immediate reaction as well.

 

Yeah I agree. When this war started I have a feeling it was envisioned as almost like Russia's invasion of Iraq in 2003. A war the average relatively wealthy citizens of Moscow and Saint Petersburg can watch on TV with a bag of chips and a beer without it directly impacting their lives. After all as all the internet "military experts" told me in February of last year, there is NO way Ukraine could fight back against Russia. It would be over in weeks. Right guys?

I think we have all seen the memes comparing the invasion of Iraq to this war complete with Gorden Ramsey having to recruit convicts from Alcatraz. I think Ukraine launching attacks deeper and deeper into Russia is them trying to hammer the point that they are nowhere close to being defeated and Putin is lying about the "Special Military Operation" going well.

Imagine it is the spring of 2004 and the Iraqi military was not only still fighting back but able to launch an attack in D.C. It must look something like that in Russia, with all the propaganda they have digested about Russia winning in Ukraine.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Harmon Rabb

[panzermartin]

 But If there is a psychosis in their hearts and minds of average russians about the threat from their western borders, these attacks hitting home will only reinforce it. Not that Ukraine doesn't have the absolute right to do so. An eye for an eye...But do we want to fuel that psychosis more? The last thing Ukraine wants is to mobilize the more developed russian oblasts. So far Russia has been exchanging their worst (convicts, etc) for the best Ukraine has to offer (students, educated proffesionals etc) 

Anyway, chances are this isnt a wider bomber Harris plan but an effort to distract Russia ahead of the real offensive. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by panzermartin

[Holien]

27 minutes ago, akd said:

At least one of the drones appears to have just glided down into an open field without kinetic interference, so between AD intercepts and possible guidance jamming, it will be difficult to say what was an intended target.

Just watching the BBC report I don't think the drones had any explosive on them, it could just be a big stunt. The Russians have not shown any serious damage and the media have a bit easier access to film any serious damage in Moscow. 

We will have to see what the drones were to understand the possible range and any possible payload, but its looking like it was more of a psychology opportunity than a serious military hit.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

I won't argue about the success of that campaign but the discussion here was about (indiscriminately) bombing civilians - at least in my understanding. So, does this air campaign (and there is of course a number of actually successful ones that were not targeted at civilians) make for a good example here?

"After first targeting the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s air defences, NATO gradually escalated the campaign using the most advanced, precision-guided systems and avoiding civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible." (nato.int) So,

You're swirling a whole bunch of stuff together without separating out the elements.  First, there is no terror bombing campaign by Ukraine against Russia.  Comparisons to raids on Tokyo, Berlin, London, etc. are therefore not applicable right from the get go.

Second, the intended purpose of the raids against Hanoi, Hamburg, Portsmouth, etc. were all dual purpose.  They were supposed to both destroy infrastructure necessary for war as well as terrorize the population into submission.  Depending on the particular campaign and the particular part of the campaign, the first goal had some/much success while the second gold did not.

Third, Ukraine's use of drones *are* precision weapons, therefore it is more akin to what NATO did against Serbia and not V-1s over London.

Fourth, Serbia's government "sued for peace" because it understood that it was ill equipped to deal with the attacks and that the Serbian population was very unhappy about having their lights turned off by NATO bombing.  The combination appears to be what brought Serbia to the negotiating table.

Fifth, the likely intended purpose of the Ukraine strikes is to boost morale at home and to increase friction within Russia.  All evidence indicates both objectives have been achieved even though we have no indication how important this is to the war effort generally.

Lastly, I don't think anybody in the West is going to lose sleep over this.  The Russians have been wiping Ukrainian villages and cities off the map since this war started.  Ukraine has ever right to strike back, especially if it is not deliberately targeting civilians.  Which, so far, they do not seem to be doing.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

5 minutes ago, Holien said:

Just watching the BBC report I don't think the drones had any explosive on them, it could just be a big stunt. The Russians have not shown any serious damage and the media have a bit easier access to film any serious damage in Moscow. 

We will have to see what the drones were to understand the possible range and any possible payload, but its looking like it was more of a psychology opportunity than a serious military hit.

It also looks like the number of drones was closer to 5 than 25.

 

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

 But If there is a psychosis in their hearts and minds of average russians about the threat from their western borders, these attacks hitting home will only reinforce it. Not that Ukraine doesn't have the absolute right to do so. An eye for an eye...But do we want to fuel that psychosis more? The last thing Ukraine wants is to mobilize the more developed russian oblasts. So far Russia has been exchanging their worst (convicts, etc) for the best Ukraine has to offer (students, educated proffesionals etc) 

Anyway, chances are this isnt a wider bomber Harris plan but an effort to distract Russia ahead of the real offensive. 

The threat from NATO psychosis is real, but that is only half of what Russia suffers from.  The other half is the belief that they can win a war with NATO.  So far NATO hasn't done anything directly, so Russians are in a bit of a quandary because the direct threat from NATO isn't there, but a direct threat from Ukraine is and it is beating the snot out of Russia.

The other threat Russians fear is the central government losing control of the economy and civil order.  They fear a return to the 1990s more than they fear NATO.  The economic strains are evident everywhere in Russia, the crack down on civil liberties as well.  I don't think many Russians are comfortable where things are headed.  Having drone strikes in/around Moscow is only going to further reduce confidence that Putin has things under control.

So yeah, from a psychological standpoint this is a good move by Ukraine.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It also looks like the number of drones was closer to 5 than 25.

 

It is entirely possible that this was a practical test by Ukraine to see "what Russia's air defenses doing".  They also could be testing out real world performance and control of these relatively new drones.  If they plan on more attacks in the near future, sending a few in to test theories and refine planning makes a lot of sense.

Are we even sure these drones were armed?  If this was just a test I think it would be smart to not have them armed with explosives.  Reduces the chance of hitting a school or something by accident.

Steve

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You're swirling a whole bunch of stuff together without separating out the elements.  First, there is no terror bombing campaign by Ukraine against Russia.  Comparisons to raids on Tokyo, Berlin, London, etc. are therefore not applicable right from the get go.

Second, the intended purpose of the raids against Hanoi, Hamburg, Portsmouth, etc. were all dual purpose.  They were supposed to both destroy infrastructure necessary for war as well as terrorize the population into submission.  Depending on the particular campaign and the particular part of the campaign, the first goal had some/much success while the second gold did not.

Third, Ukraine's use of drones *are* precision weapons, therefore it is more akin to what NATO did against Serbia and not V-1s over London.

Fourth, Serbia's government "sued for peace" because it understood that it was ill equipped to deal with the attacks and that the Serbian population was very unhappy about having their lights turned off by NATO bombing.  The combination appears to be what brought Serbia to the negotiating table.

Fifth, the likely intended purpose of the Ukraine strikes is to boost morale at home and to increase friction within Russia.  All evidence indicates both objectives have been achieved even though we have no indication how important this is to the war effort generally.

Lastly, I don't think anybody in the West is going to lose sleep over this.  The Russians have been wiping Ukrainian villages and cities off the map since this war started.  Ukraine has ever right to strike back, especially if it is not deliberately targeting civilians.  Which, so far, they do not seem to be doing.

Steve

I am open to more info completely changing my thinking, but I really don't like the hitting of civilian residences by design.  I'd much rather have drones hitting the kremlin or some other highly visible RU property.  If these civilian hits were by accident, then UKR needs to say that they were aiming for something else and also learn a lesson on how to path the drones so this doesn't happen. 

UKR needs to keep the high ground, this is important in short term but also in the longer term when (hopefully) RU leaders are in the dock at The Hague.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

4 hours ago, Butschi said:

Sounds plausible but the same was true for Nazi Germany. The regime did everything it could to allow civilians at home to live a normal life. The allies argued that bombing German cities would make the people revolt against their leaders. It never worked. And it never worked that way in any other bombing campaign on civilians, so far. US bombs killed a staggering fourth of the North Korean civilian population.

You have correctly identified why it didn't work in the past.  A unified population, either voluntarily (like British and Ukrainian civilians) or through brainwashing/fear (WW2 Germany or North Korea), will not be shaken by such attacks.  If anything, it will reinforce their unity.

This is *not* the case in Russia.  The population is fractured and under great stress.  The political apparatus governing them is also becoming more obviously in turmoil with various factions undermining each other.  The common element is the war is not going well and both the population and the power blocs know it.

Careful there. Such bombing campaigns against civilians have never worked. They still don't. My bold above sounds like you are using the same justification that everyone else used when justifying their civilian bombing campaign.

 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

A better example to look at is Serbia being bombed to stop the war in Kosovo.  It worked because the conditions within Serbia were precarious.  The Serbian power structure understood that the population was not going to support mass murder in Kosovo at the expense of their own lives and comfort.

I would argue that major difference was that that bombing campaign did not target civilians to "break their morale". Yes, I am well aware that many civilians died I'm not saying it didn't hurt I'm saying that even the civilians living in those cities could see that they were not the direct target of the bombing.

So, apples to oranges and concluded that bananas was the winner, comparison there.

[MikeyD]

The first recent drone attack on Moscow this spring that I recall was an attack against a flag pole over the Kremlin. Not on infrastructure, not on a children's hospital, not flying into the window of a bureaucrat's office, but a flag pole. That tells you these are primarily symbolic attacks.