Tweeter is the Ukrainian Defense Minister. Tweet itself is a graphic of Russian missile inventories. How many they started with, have produced, used, and have left. From the start of the current invasion until now. The rough TL;DR is that they're running low(ish) on a lot of stuff, with S-300's being the only weapons they have in abundance. The large scale infrastructure attacks over the past couple months seem like they use up about 100 missiles of various flavors each time. There's no details on when the production of various missiles happened, so no way to tell if the 16 new Kinzhals are from spring (before the sanctions really hit) or from last month (which would mean that they're running on washing machine parts or Russia has found ways to get at least some tech through the sanctions).
The numbers make it very clear why Russia is getting stuff from Iran though. They're running low, and they probably want to keep some of their inventory on hand in case... something something Poland/Belarus/Kazakhstan... who knows, but keeping a reserve in case something crops up does make sense. So as long as what they're getting from Iran is accurate enough to hit large targets like power plants and panelák, and numerous enough to overwhelm Ukraine's missile defenses.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
So as long as what they're getting from Iran is accurate enough to hit large targets like power plants and panelák, and numerous enough to overwhelm Ukraine's missile defenses.
Don't forget the other clear military threats to Russia, like kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals.
War criminals gotta war crime.
MorganV on
+28
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
So as long as what they're getting from Iran is accurate enough to hit large targets like power plants and panelák, and numerous enough to overwhelm Ukraine's missile defenses.
Don't forget the other clear military threats to Russia, like kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals.
War criminals gotta war crime.
Definitely the hospitals. Russia hit a maternity ward last week, only casualty was a two-day old.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Some units do away with the acronyms in favor of puns. I served with the 3rd Infantry Division, "The Rock of the Marne", referencing the river in France and fighting there during WW1.
That phrase showed up everywhere. When we saluted, we were supposed to say "Rock of the Marne, sir!" Every morning before PT we sang The Dog Faced Soldier, which includes the line "keep me in the Marne Division".
Naturally, these rapidly became "rocked by the Marne" and "keep me in the Marne position", and Marne itself was used as an expletive, as in "I've been Marned, CP duty again" or "The CO's called a special formation, prepare for the Marning".
So there's a rumor that Lukashenko's foreign minister was poisoned and he's being told to change all his personal staff.
No idea what to make of that - the death was a few days ago with an unreported cause, but there's exactly one player in espionage who's favored poison in Europe and it sure isn't NATO.
None of the reporting on this looks reliable yet so take with a grain of salt, but it would be on brand for Russia - particularly as a way to pressure Lukashenko to get in on the war.
Lukashenko has played a surprisingly deft game of avoiding getting dragged directly into this, but I feel like the jig is nearly up.
Probably the only thing keeping him alive is the fear that not enough of his crew of thugs will themselves to a replacement directly imposed by the Kremlin, and that Belarus will then immediately rebel. Russia simply wouldn't be able to do much about that right now.
Lukashenko has played a surprisingly deft game of avoiding getting dragged directly into this, but I feel like the jig is nearly up.
Probably the only thing keeping him alive is the fear that not enough of his crew of thugs will themselves to a replacement directly imposed by the Kremlin, and that Belarus will then immediately rebel. Russia simply wouldn't be able to do much about that right now.
Belarus is a bit of a Zugzwang position for both Putin and Lukashenko.
It's very precariously balanced, but a Belarus that is Russia-aligned but not providing material support is more valuable to Putin than having Lukashenko's government collapse. Even if you disregard the likely protests by the people of Belarus if their military is mobilized against their Ukrainian neighbors, and you even disregard the anger at the sons and brothers coming back in body bags (if at all), if the people of Belarus begin agitating Lukashenko needs those troops to put down Euromaidan-style protests.
Lukashenko certainly isn't getting the support of CSTO and Russian VDV that saved Tokayev's ass earlier this year. He'll end up dead or in exile, and Belarus will rapidly realign with the EU / NATO, leaving Russia with no friends along their entire western border.
Of course Lukashenko also realizes that a lack of support from Putin (or worse, Putin deciding he's no longer useful and can be replaced) will also likely result in him dead or in exile from the Putin-aligned oligarchs in his country (and / or Russian FSB assassins). It's a gamble of course by Russia to do this because a weaker leader runs the risk of above revolution and government collapse, so Lukashenko has to give enough support to make the gamble of replacement look too risky for Putin.
The biggest problem is that Putin is getting more desperate and irrational in all this and simply demanding the impossible. The government of Belarus collapsing / reforming and aligning itself with Europe is a huge tomorrow problem for Russia's ambitions, but Putin's invasion has plenty of problems today that need to be solved for any of those consequences matter.
Ironically it's looking like the outcome of this war could very well result in Ukraine and Belarus becoming EU and NATO members by the end of the decade, and Russia being entirely devoid of their precious (and strategically dubious) buffer states.
Also Lukashenko has long been balancing between asset and liability for Putin, and if he openly joins the war, putting Belarus in suicide pact with Putin - he'll simply will not have any more to offer to Putin. At that point he may as well outlive his usefulness and he knows it.
I've seen several pro-Russia groups charge that targeting power stations is ok because NATO deliberately bombed Serbian power infrastructure in 1999.
In case any of you encounter this line of argument, please keep in mind that it is true. The difference is we did it in May, not at the start of winter.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I've seen several pro-Russia groups charge that targeting power stations is ok because NATO deliberately bombed Serbian power infrastructure in 1999.
In case any of you encounter this line of argument, please keep in mind that it is true. The difference is we did it in May, not at the start of winter.
NATO also didn't do it in response to one of it's members' failed invasion of a sovereign state.
I've seen several pro-Russia groups charge that targeting power stations is ok because NATO deliberately bombed Serbian power infrastructure in 1999.
In case any of you encounter this line of argument, please keep in mind that it is true. The difference is we did it in May, not at the start of winter.
Also NATO doing wrong thing does not justify doing wrong yourself, especially when your whole shtick is "we are against NATO because it is evil"
Родина вернись домой
+38
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Every time these fucksticks bring up anything NATO did to Serbia, they conveniently leave out that Serbia was engaging in genocidal war at the time
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Russia: You bombed people to try to stop warcrimes. We bomb people to help commit warcrimes. Both sides same!
They pick Serbia because that suits their pan-slavic narrative. It’s their imperialism/sovereignty go-to comparison.
If tankies want to do whataboutism regarding war crimes they could (and do) point at Iraq.
This whole thing only got brought up because of the ‘bombing power plants’ comparison, but let’s not pretend the ‘bomb a village to save a village’ guys are angels.
Just enjoy the moral high ground while it lasts.
+11
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
There remains no discernable strategic value in Russia's bombing of infrastructure is the big issue. It's just very obviously nothing more then collective punishment.
AN-124s are running a lot of flights from China to Russia. It's not clear what they're carrying, but these planes are big - nearly the size of the late AN-225, the difference is more in weight capacity than cubic footage.
The article gives some statements on what they're shipping but they seem to be from planespotters, not anyone in the know, but the city they're being loaded in is a major logistics hub for China's defense and electronics industries, and hosts a manufacturer of body armor and small arms. All of this is stuff that Russia's hitting the wall on to Ukraine's benefit.
These are huge planes and are usually rolled out to carry things like orbital class rockets, industrial machinery, and infrastructure level electrical components. Ten flights in a little over a week is a LOT of SOMETHING.
The solution remains what it always is with dealing with the Russians. Give Ukraine the weapons to turn it back on them.
In the end if it's a fight to keep the lights on, the country that is under sanctions by the homes of GE, ABB, Generac, SPX, Siemens, Hitachi, etc etc is going to have a rough time of it.
AN-124s are running a lot of flights from China to Russia. It's not clear what they're carrying, but these planes are big - nearly the size of the late AN-225, the difference is more in weight capacity than cubic footage.
The article gives some statements on what they're shipping but they seem to be from planespotters, not anyone in the know, but the city they're being loaded in is a major logistics hub for China's defense and electronics industries, and hosts a manufacturer of body armor and small arms. All of this is stuff that Russia's hitting the wall on to Ukraine's benefit.
These are huge planes and are usually rolled out to carry things like orbital class rockets, industrial machinery, and infrastructure level electrical components. Ten flights in a little over a week is a LOT of SOMETHING.
Crap. I just want this dumb waste of human life to stop. Hearing that China is now deciding to start fueling this flaming barrel of shit directly with equipment is very depressing.
If it's only small arms and body armor it's not as much of an issue (and is in point of fact probably worse for russia since they can't be cheaper to aquire then domestically manufactured arms) and I can't imagine Xi is insane enough to throw in on this conflict 9 months in when his country is dealing with enough internal problems without drawing the Baleful eye of NATO.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
Unless nations start building parallel power infrastructure specifically for military use I doubt it will happen sadly. Its just to effective to kill the power and turn off your enemies eyes and ears on the battlefield.
AN-124s are running a lot of flights from China to Russia. It's not clear what they're carrying, but these planes are big - nearly the size of the late AN-225, the difference is more in weight capacity than cubic footage.
The article gives some statements on what they're shipping but they seem to be from planespotters, not anyone in the know, but the city they're being loaded in is a major logistics hub for China's defense and electronics industries, and hosts a manufacturer of body armor and small arms. All of this is stuff that Russia's hitting the wall on to Ukraine's benefit.
These are huge planes and are usually rolled out to carry things like orbital class rockets, industrial machinery, and infrastructure level electrical components. Ten flights in a little over a week is a LOT of SOMETHING.
Crap. I just want this dumb waste of human life to stop. Hearing that China is now deciding to start fueling this flaming barrel of shit directly with equipment is very depressing.
Yeah. And it doesn't really matter what they're shipping, even if it's literally just propping up the Russian economy it's prolonging the war.
Also, no reason it's just one kind of thing. More than one AN per day round trip is almost unprecedented air shipping volume.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Under absolutely no circumstances nor twists of any words I have posted have I ever claimed what is or is not currently a war crime.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Under absolutely no circumstances nor twists of any words I have posted have I ever claimed what is or is not currently a war crime.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Under absolutely no circumstances nor twists of any words I have posted have I ever claimed what is or is not currently a war crime.
IMHO the warcrime here is in Russia (in it’s missile strikes) attacking only attacking water and electricity infrastructure.
Bombing weapons factories, a railyard and the power plant running those is strategic war stuff.
Bombing only the bits with civilian collateral damage is terrorism.
I can draw a comparison to conflicts where habitually mostly journalists or medics are shot; those killings are psy-ops rather than side effects of combat.
Same thing with Russia shelling civilian buildings in cities even if those are not strategically significant.
Clearly, a choice is made to terrorise civilians in order to get diplomatic leverage.
Both sides aren't the same, but attacking electrical infrastructure is like...the definition of a legitimate target. Much like a bridge or a runway. It doesn't excuse the harm the civilians will suffer, especially given the season.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Under absolutely no circumstances nor twists of any words I have posted have I ever claimed what is or is not currently a war crime.
Then what "rules" are you referencing? And what defines a "legitimate target" then?
Posts
Tweeter is the Ukrainian Defense Minister. Tweet itself is a graphic of Russian missile inventories. How many they started with, have produced, used, and have left. From the start of the current invasion until now. The rough TL;DR is that they're running low(ish) on a lot of stuff, with S-300's being the only weapons they have in abundance. The large scale infrastructure attacks over the past couple months seem like they use up about 100 missiles of various flavors each time. There's no details on when the production of various missiles happened, so no way to tell if the 16 new Kinzhals are from spring (before the sanctions really hit) or from last month (which would mean that they're running on washing machine parts or Russia has found ways to get at least some tech through the sanctions).
The numbers make it very clear why Russia is getting stuff from Iran though. They're running low, and they probably want to keep some of their inventory on hand in case... something something Poland/Belarus/Kazakhstan... who knows, but keeping a reserve in case something crops up does make sense. So as long as what they're getting from Iran is accurate enough to hit large targets like power plants and panelák, and numerous enough to overwhelm Ukraine's missile defenses.
Don't forget the other clear military threats to Russia, like kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals.
War criminals gotta war crime.
Definitely the hospitals. Russia hit a maternity ward last week, only casualty was a two-day old.
That's a WWII era one, if I recall correctly.
BOHICA is situational.
Some units do away with the acronyms in favor of puns. I served with the 3rd Infantry Division, "The Rock of the Marne", referencing the river in France and fighting there during WW1.
That phrase showed up everywhere. When we saluted, we were supposed to say "Rock of the Marne, sir!" Every morning before PT we sang The Dog Faced Soldier, which includes the line "keep me in the Marne Division".
Naturally, these rapidly became "rocked by the Marne" and "keep me in the Marne position", and Marne itself was used as an expletive, as in "I've been Marned, CP duty again" or "The CO's called a special formation, prepare for the Marning".
No idea what to make of that - the death was a few days ago with an unreported cause, but there's exactly one player in espionage who's favored poison in Europe and it sure isn't NATO.
None of the reporting on this looks reliable yet so take with a grain of salt, but it would be on brand for Russia - particularly as a way to pressure Lukashenko to get in on the war.
Probably the only thing keeping him alive is the fear that not enough of his crew of thugs will themselves to a replacement directly imposed by the Kremlin, and that Belarus will then immediately rebel. Russia simply wouldn't be able to do much about that right now.
It's when we get to the acronyms designating specific vehicles, tactics or amy units i bow out.
Belarus is a bit of a Zugzwang position for both Putin and Lukashenko.
It's very precariously balanced, but a Belarus that is Russia-aligned but not providing material support is more valuable to Putin than having Lukashenko's government collapse. Even if you disregard the likely protests by the people of Belarus if their military is mobilized against their Ukrainian neighbors, and you even disregard the anger at the sons and brothers coming back in body bags (if at all), if the people of Belarus begin agitating Lukashenko needs those troops to put down Euromaidan-style protests.
Lukashenko certainly isn't getting the support of CSTO and Russian VDV that saved Tokayev's ass earlier this year. He'll end up dead or in exile, and Belarus will rapidly realign with the EU / NATO, leaving Russia with no friends along their entire western border.
Of course Lukashenko also realizes that a lack of support from Putin (or worse, Putin deciding he's no longer useful and can be replaced) will also likely result in him dead or in exile from the Putin-aligned oligarchs in his country (and / or Russian FSB assassins). It's a gamble of course by Russia to do this because a weaker leader runs the risk of above revolution and government collapse, so Lukashenko has to give enough support to make the gamble of replacement look too risky for Putin.
The biggest problem is that Putin is getting more desperate and irrational in all this and simply demanding the impossible. The government of Belarus collapsing / reforming and aligning itself with Europe is a huge tomorrow problem for Russia's ambitions, but Putin's invasion has plenty of problems today that need to be solved for any of those consequences matter.
Ironically it's looking like the outcome of this war could very well result in Ukraine and Belarus becoming EU and NATO members by the end of the decade, and Russia being entirely devoid of their precious (and strategically dubious) buffer states.
In case any of you encounter this line of argument, please keep in mind that it is true. The difference is we did it in May, not at the start of winter.
NATO also didn't do it in response to one of it's members' failed invasion of a sovereign state.
Also NATO doing wrong thing does not justify doing wrong yourself, especially when your whole shtick is "we are against NATO because it is evil"
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Too be fair (no, not really), that's happening in Ukraine too.
Of course in this case, it's the one committing genocide that's bombing critical infrastructure as part of it's plan to commit genocide.
My maternal grandfather named one of his dogs Fubar when I was five. The man served in the Coast Guard during WW2 out of Hawaii.
He didn't swear much around me or my sister growing up, but he did use many of these.
If tankies want to do whataboutism regarding war crimes they could (and do) point at Iraq.
This whole thing only got brought up because of the ‘bombing power plants’ comparison, but let’s not pretend the ‘bomb a village to save a village’ guys are angels.
Just enjoy the moral high ground while it lasts.
It's not attacking a hospital or a water treatment plant (and yes the power is probably going to be feeding water treatment plants so...indirectly it is).
Dual-use infrastructure takes it in the face in war.
Writing up a project plan with a significant buffer in it because key employees may lose power due to Russian bombardment. shrug.gif
They (and their families) are currently safe, at least, just inconvienced.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
AN-124s are running a lot of flights from China to Russia. It's not clear what they're carrying, but these planes are big - nearly the size of the late AN-225, the difference is more in weight capacity than cubic footage.
The article gives some statements on what they're shipping but they seem to be from planespotters, not anyone in the know, but the city they're being loaded in is a major logistics hub for China's defense and electronics industries, and hosts a manufacturer of body armor and small arms. All of this is stuff that Russia's hitting the wall on to Ukraine's benefit.
These are huge planes and are usually rolled out to carry things like orbital class rockets, industrial machinery, and infrastructure level electrical components. Ten flights in a little over a week is a LOT of SOMETHING.
In the end if it's a fight to keep the lights on, the country that is under sanctions by the homes of GE, ABB, Generac, SPX, Siemens, Hitachi, etc etc is going to have a rough time of it.
Crap. I just want this dumb waste of human life to stop. Hearing that China is now deciding to start fueling this flaming barrel of shit directly with equipment is very depressing.
Electrical infrastructure can take an extremely long time to rebuild, depending on what they hit. It can decimate a population's quality of life, hamper education, water supply, food storage, the list goes on and on and on. And that shit just stays broken for years, potentially decades. Yes it hampers the military but not nearly as much as just hitting the goddamn military, the majority of the damage is going to be to civilians, causing a public health crisis echoing for years.
See: Iraq, Desert Storm.
If it is currently not protected, it really should be, we've seen what happens.
It should be but I don't know how you enforce it. It is after all dual use and impacts a nation's ability to continue fighting the war due to disruption of production, etc.
Much like the landmine ban. From a "life after the war" perspective it makes sense, but they are way too useful for passive area denial for nations that actually engage in war to sign onto that treaty.
Like the US. Maybe the US will surprise me someday but I expect to continue to be disappointed on that front.
This is a "war fucking sucks" type thing, and it only works for leaders that see it in their best interests to support.
Torture, rape, and relocation aren't allowed but that hasn't stopped Russia so far. Why would they even sign onto a treaty that kept them from blowing up power plants? Would they even hesitate to break it if they had happened to sign it?
Let's be real here.
edit: and I'm sure the next nation we (the US) invade we're going to obliterate their electrical grid first thing, because that's what we always do.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Unless nations start building parallel power infrastructure specifically for military use I doubt it will happen sadly. Its just to effective to kill the power and turn off your enemies eyes and ears on the battlefield.
Yeah. And it doesn't really matter what they're shipping, even if it's literally just propping up the Russian economy it's prolonging the war.
Also, no reason it's just one kind of thing. More than one AN per day round trip is almost unprecedented air shipping volume.
I don't really have an answer for how to stop war crimes or punish them or whatever, I just wanted to push back on the idea that it's the "definition of a legitimate target."
I mean, but it is. Your command and control, radar, communications. They all run off the civilian power grind. No nation is going to want to fight without the ability to turn those off.
Guess they'll have to stop fighting, then, if fighting within the rules is too hard. Shucks.
Also there's ways to hit civilian power grids without fucking them up for decades (like hitting transformer yards) but I'm going to launch a wild guess that the Russian military isn't being picky.
Can you provide any evidence to your claim that targeting power stations is a war crime? Or is this just your personal feeling on what should and should not be considered such?
Under absolutely no circumstances nor twists of any words I have posted have I ever claimed what is or is not currently a war crime.
I googled this for all of you. https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2022/10/27/is-attacking-the-electricity-infrastructure-used-by-civilians-always-a-war-crime/
IMHO the warcrime here is in Russia (in it’s missile strikes) attacking only attacking water and electricity infrastructure.
Bombing weapons factories, a railyard and the power plant running those is strategic war stuff.
Bombing only the bits with civilian collateral damage is terrorism.
I can draw a comparison to conflicts where habitually mostly journalists or medics are shot; those killings are psy-ops rather than side effects of combat.
Same thing with Russia shelling civilian buildings in cities even if those are not strategically significant.
Clearly, a choice is made to terrorise civilians in order to get diplomatic leverage.
Then what "rules" are you referencing? And what defines a "legitimate target" then?