[HN Gopher] Defensive tactics from the modern history of urban w...
___________________________________________________________________
Defensive tactics from the modern history of urban warfare
Author : martingoodson
Score : 252 points
Date : 2022-02-26 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mwi.usma.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (mwi.usma.edu)
| Avicebron wrote:
| I know two people in Ukraine who have received automatic weapons
| from the gov't...I do wonder how reasonable it is to arm
| untrained civilians. Turning someone without training into an
| armed combatant against an invading military seems like putting
| them directly in a high risk of being shot (as opposed to the
| lower risk of collateral casualty)
|
| EDIT: it's not my hill to die on, I just hope it's not theirs
| either
| amelius wrote:
| Also, how is this coordinated, and how do they prevent being
| shot at by their own people?
| op00to wrote:
| They are trained by the local defense organization.
| peakaboo wrote:
| It's a war. Normal rules to not apply. If you are ever in
| one, you will want a weapon, trust me.
| Friday_ wrote:
| ... there are some rules by Geneva convention
|
| This civilians with guns are now combatants. And must
| "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war"
| lazide wrote:
| Lulz - that's all well and good, except that gets paid
| mostly lip service even by the professional militaries,
| who are the ones who have the most to lose by not
| following the rules.
|
| Civilians do what they need to do to survive and protect
| their loved ones. If that means shivving a soldier in the
| back while pretending to be unarmed, so be it.
|
| Having guns is way better than civilians usually get.
| Friday_ wrote:
| Yea, they can do that but i think it is a war crime. Not
| sure thou im not lawyer.
|
| Anyway it probably confuses soldiers so they start
| killing civilians.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| You wear IFF coloured bands. From photos I've seen the
| Ukrainians are using yellow arm bands, and Russians white leg
| bands.
| op00to wrote:
| They are already at high risk of being shot. Merely leaving the
| city they are in puts them at massive risk of attack. There are
| almost no instances where we should be arming people, but
| having evil, rampaging attackers kilometers from entices one to
| defend themselves rather than submit to occupation and likely
| death.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| In 1995 Chechen anti-tank teams drawn from the local civilian
| population disabled a whole Russian tank battalion while
| suffering very few loses themselves. You can do a lot with
| volunteers on home territory. The Ukrainians are in a
| struggle for self determination, these people are
| volunteering and they should be able to if the want to.
| int_19h wrote:
| Chechen anti-tank teams were facing very poorly prepared
| and motivated, and almost entirely conscript, Russian army
| in 1994-96. With tanks in particular, inexperienced
| commanders who were given orders to "get it over quickly"
| would often send them without infantry screens, making them
| easy pickings for RPG teams. And in urban areas especially,
| RPGs were used from basements of apartment buildings - low
| enough that Russian tanks cannot depress the main gun to
| lob a shell in there, or use the co-axial MG.
|
| None of this is likely to apply in this case. Russian armor
| is still likely to take heavy casualties in the cities -
| that's just the nature of urban warfare - but I don't think
| it'll be anything like Chechnya in the 90s.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| AFAIK The Chechens were ex soviet military and had been
| operating a large scale black market for weapons - so they
| had plenty on hand. Towards the end of that conflict Russia
| started using AA guns on the tanks to counter the ambushes.
| I'm pretty sure they learned a lot from that experience.
| rjsw wrote:
| Russia started using AA guns on the tanks to counter the
| ambushes.
|
| Haven't seen any pictures of these [1] in Ukraine.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
| ch4s3 wrote:
| They were, but a lot of Ukrainians have military service
| experience. It also seems like Russia didn't learn those
| lessons, and others. Their armor looks to be stretched
| thin. In urban fighting having lots of people firing from
| a lot of places on advancing Russians will make it hard
| for them to focus air support. Just pinning down small
| groups of Russian infantry will allow the Ukrainian army
| to roll them up if they can maintain mobility.
| CreepGin wrote:
| Ukraine is one of the 28 countries with mandatory military
| service. But regardless, I think anything goes when your
| country is facing an existential threat.
| chefkoch wrote:
| I don't understand why they are doing this, Wikipedia states
| that they have 900 000 citizens that went through military
| service. If you can't defend your country with almost a million
| soldiers No amount of untrained civians will.
| seer wrote:
| Thats the thing - they've passed the mandatory military
| service, so they know how to follow orders and maintain
| discipline, but they went home and became
| doctors/programmers, now that there's war, they are given
| arms and asked to remember their training.
| chefkoch wrote:
| But then they aren't just giving out guns to civilians, but
| they are calling them back to service (i don't know the
| proper english term for this).
| dylan604 wrote:
| In the US, we have active military members where they are
| 24/7 soldiers. There are also reservists where once a
| month, they get together for a weekend to do solider
| stuff. There's also a two week stint once a year to keep
| up training. So not quite as well trained as active
| military, but a hell of a lot more well trained than just
| handing rifles to someone with a slap on the backside
| with a "good luck" for extra measure.
|
| Otherwise, calling a retired active military member back
| to active service is known as being recalled.
| ezconnect wrote:
| lazysheepherd wrote:
| Consider all 4 dimensions of the battlefield. You cannot be
| aware of every direction, at all times. Especially in cities,
| which has 3 spatial dimensions of potential hostile infantry
| positions. Therefore sheer numbers do matter.
|
| Especially in the cities, all insurgents have to do is wait,
| and rain down bullets. Many will miss, but some will hit.
| giantrobot wrote:
| One key to success in military operations is _tempo_. Armed
| defenders using guerrilla tactics disrupt an attacker 's
| tempo. Every minute a platoon of soldiers hesitates crossing
| a street or gets bogged down clearing a building is a minute
| closer to sunset, a minute more of vehicles burning fuel, a
| minute longer for defenders to get reinforcements, and more
| stress and fatigue on the whole unit.
|
| An attacking force doesn't have infinite resources to attack
| indefinitely. A mechanized force that runs out of fuel is
| extremely vulnerable. Those extra minutes burning gas not
| being able to push forward add up.
| tempestn wrote:
| It's certainly not ideal, but their only other choice at this
| point is to surrender to Russian occupation. The Russian
| military greatly outnumbers that of Ukraine, so without
| civilians joining the defense, they'd really have no chance. Of
| course these people are at high risk, but obviously they feel
| it's worth it to defend their freedom.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I don't see how a civilian force will significantly improve
| their chances.
|
| Edit: this isn't a video game. Civilians taking up arms makes
| them targets. The Russian aim is regime change, and at this
| time it appears that Russia will prevail. It is existential
| for Russia. All a civilian resistance will do is maybe
| slightly delay the inevitable at horrific cost. I think
| people should be discouraged from throwing their lives away
| on a lost cause. Even the Ukrainian propaganda of heroic
| deaths contains an understanding that there is no hope.
| lazide wrote:
| Guerilla warfare is very effective against 'traditional
| military' tactics.
|
| It causes bloodshed, but it's not like having everyone you
| know sent to the gulag is all roses and butterflies either.
| And that is legitimately what the stakes are (or worse).
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Locals often know every street, every building, every alley
| of their neighborhood. That information asymmetry is a huge
| advantage in the locals' favor.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The chance that any random civilian you encounter could
| blow you away drastically changes how an occupying force
| has to go about occupying
| tyingq wrote:
| History is littered with examples of civilian forces making
| occupation unbearable for the occupiers.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Russian forces are mostly conscripts, so it's not that much
| better. They probably have marginally better training, but
| they're less motivated. Also, there's military service in
| Ukraine. The average civilian probably has a decent
| understanding of weapons handling and basic tactics.
| remarkEon wrote:
| They also have less knowledge and understanding of the
| key terrain involved. That's the key here in urban
| warfare. Understanding the critical choke points, areas
| of overwatch and lines of sight etc will be something
| they know intuitively because they're from there.
| Russians will have to look at their maps.
| openasocket wrote:
| The forces fighting in Ukraine are not conscripts, but
| contract soldiers. Russian law doesn't allow conscripts
| to be deployed overseas. Of course it's an authoritarian
| regime so they could do it anyway, but there would be
| serious domestic repercussions and largely isn't
| necessary to get the troop concentrations they have
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Heh. You can really tell in this thread who has grown up with
| guns and who hasn't.
|
| I remember my grandpa taking me under some bridge somewhere and
| letting me loose off a few .45 rounds. I was about 8.
|
| It was supremely stupid. In fact, I have a vivid memory of it
| almost being a disaster. My grandpa lived in a bad part of
| Alton, IL. His house got broken into on a regular basis. So he
| kept a loaded pistol right next to his bed.
|
| Somehow I found this thing at around the same age, and started
| fooling around with it.
|
| But then something interesting happened. The thing my grandpa
| taught me: never to assume a gun wasn't loaded, and always
| check it. So I checked it, and sure enough, I did not squeeze
| the trigger that day.
|
| My point is, it doesn't take much training to be safe around
| weapons. Military tactics are an entirely different matter, of
| course. It's not a great idea to have random people running
| around with guns.
|
| But they're not random people. They're defending their home. If
| SF was under attack by Japan in an alternate universe, wouldn't
| you do the same?
|
| Seeing Kiev unfold makes me feel a strange kinship with
| Washington, of all people. There too, people had very little
| combat training, and were pretty much arming the neighbors. But
| it turns out that armed neighbors can sometimes be effective.
|
| Here's a fascinating piece of propaganda for you:
| https://twitter.com/peedutuisk/status/1497310882069581824
|
| It's propaganda, but it's very good propaganda. For a brief
| moment, I was actually crazy enough to wish I was out there
| helping them.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _My point is, it doesn 't take much training to be safe
| around weapons._
|
| And yet too many people do not get any kind of training:
|
| > _Student accidentally shoots self in incident at Huntsville
| elementary school_
|
| * https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/02/student-shot-
| in-i...
|
| > _Man accidentally shoots self while playing with gun along
| San Diego interstate_
|
| * https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/north-county-
| news/man...
|
| > _Man accidentally shot himself in hand while cleaning his
| gun in Mount Pleasant_
|
| * https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-
| acc...
|
| Some folks probably shouldn't have guns because of emotional
| control issues:
|
| > _A man was arrested early morning after shots were fired at
| another man during what the sheriff 's department is calling
| a road rage dispute in Coachella._
|
| * https://amp.desertsun.com/amp/6909957001
|
| > _Father in custody after directing 4-year-old to shoot at
| officers in McDonald 's drive-thru_
|
| * https://kutv.com/news/local/suspect-in-custody-after-
| shootin...
|
| More:
|
| * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
| rvba wrote:
| I wonder if Dang is checking all those throwaways to see
| which are Russian propagandists.
|
| Yes, of course some idiots can shoot themselves with guns,
| but most people don't. In fact, even most idiots don't. USA
| has more guns than people and those freak accidents are
| rare. Various third world countries have people who cannot
| read, but who can shoot a gun. And again, they dont hurt
| themselves.
|
| If you wanted to make some dig about guns, then maybe give
| examples of real problems (school shootings, robberies,
| being killed by a stray bullet), but here you come with
| some absurd comments that "NOT shooting yourself into your
| foot" requires 200 IQ, which is a straight lie. Using a gun
| is probably on par of learning to ride a bike, and
| definitely much easier than driving a car.
|
| Ukrainians cant get a guns to defend their homeland,
| because some propaganda throwaway (sponsored by GRU or
| KGB?) claims that they will shoot themselves in their feet.
|
| Those people are defending their homes against an
| aggression, most probably were conscripts who were taught
| how to use a gun.
| [deleted]
| helge9210 wrote:
| > And yet too many people do not get any kind of training:
|
| In Ukraine every man over 40 years old received a training
| on basic infantry tactics and using assault rifle AK-74 and
| hand grenade RGD-5 during high school years.
| pc86 wrote:
| What exactly is the point you're trying to make?
| Avicebron wrote:
| To be fair to myself and you, I grew up in rural america
| around with guns everywhere. Took hunter safety, whole
| shebang, never really got around to buying myself or using
| automatic weapons.
|
| I see your point on the American revolution, but please,
| let's not forget times have changed. the US population were
| on home ground with rifled barrels, easier to aim and using
| geurilla tactics against an old british standing line firing
| system (also their rifles weren't always rifled ;) ).
|
| The chance that a population of civilians with weapons goes
| to hide in a bunker with or without unarmed people is higher
| than it is with military troops, and what happens when
| Russian intel says there are enemy combatants hiding in a
| bunker vs a bunch of civilians hiding in a bunker...chances
| go up that they will receive a bunker buster knock and talk
| more than if there were unarmed people there.
|
| this isn't 1776.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The Ukrainians aren't some ragtag group. Literally
| thousands of antitank weapons have been supplied to them.
|
| The Ukrainian military, and even their air force, are still
| coordinated and operational.
|
| ---------
|
| This means that rifle militia aren't there to kill a tank.
| They are there to force the tank commander inside with
| small arms fire. Tanks are famously difficult to see out
| of.
|
| Once in there, the tank is a sitting duck to a Javelin or
| Panzerfaust will kill the tank reliably.
|
| This isn't 100 poorly trained militia vs tank.
|
| The situation is closer to 100 poorly trained militia + 5
| professional soldiers armed with NATO top of the line
| antitank missiles vs tank.
| redisman wrote:
| Battles inside a city is still armored vehicles and men on
| foot. Things haven't changed all that much. Rifles and
| improvised bombs go a long way.
| jacobolus wrote:
| If pseudonymous self-professed US veterans of
| Afghanistan/Iraq wars commenting online are to be
| trusted, balloons full of paint are among the most
| effective anti-tank weapons in urban fighting.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| That works but a Molotov cocktail on the engine air
| intake is also pretty good and easy too. The goal is to
| get the crew out of the tank. Usually you have a LOT of
| infantry around tanks to provide security
| stickfigure wrote:
| Was it not Stalin who said "quantity has a quality all its
| own?"
|
| There are hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, but tens
| of millions of Ukranians capable of using rifles semi-
| effectively. And they are _literally everywhere_ in the
| country.
| tiahura wrote:
| Having grown up around guns, you should know that modern
| semi and fully automatic rifles are 100x more n00b friendly
| than an 18th century muzzle loader.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I feel obligated to point out that a major reversal in
| Washington's fortunes came when Lafeyette (and a few other
| European officers such as Steuben) trained American
| colonists, and they became dramatically more effective. Who
| knows, maybe there are equivalents of Lafeyette and Steuben
| among the Ukrainian people today, but if so I wouldn't know
| about it (or expect to).
| Geonode wrote:
| I'm sure there are hundreds of US and NATO "advisors" on
| the ground, they show up in every conflict, but are not
| heavily reported on.
| Moru wrote:
| Ukraina has been living with the threat of war for a while
| now. They have had help training from both neighbour and
| not so neighbour countries since 2015 at least.
| helge9210 wrote:
| > Ukraina has been living with the threat of war for a
| while now.
|
| It was known since at least 2005
| 34679 wrote:
| I've seen a few videos of citizens lining up for weapons, and
| IMO, the troubling thing is the lack of uniforms. If Russians
| can't tell the difference between civilians and combatants,
| everyone becomes a target.
| lazide wrote:
| 'Legally?' Nope. But that is literally how every invasion
| ends up until the population is 'pacified'. It's why
| guerilla war works so well too.
|
| The invaders/gov't can't tell who is actually an adversary
| until it is late, and attempts to guess always kill
| innocent civilians which just draws more anger and hate
| from the local population and creates more
| rebels/guerillas.
|
| This is why people say 'war is hell - because it is.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Russia is already attacking hospitals and apartment
| buildings. The time has passed for that little problem.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/14975147473857576
| 9...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-
| b...
|
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-
| b...
|
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-
| b...
|
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-
| b...
|
| https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/26/world/26ukraine-
| b...
|
| Yellow armbands seem to be the militia indicator.
| rjsw wrote:
| > Yellow armbands seem to be the militia indicator.
|
| Not just militia, both sides have the same uniforms and
| helmets.
| restricted_ptr wrote:
| It's not clear if it helps in the long run, it probably
| does but a lot of friendly fire should be expected. Just
| recent example where Ukrainian anti aircraft units were
| taken for Russians and killed in Kyiv (the one where strela
| 10 vehicle collided with a car under fire) shows the
| danger.
| pc86 wrote:
| Is the risk to minimize total casualties (military and
| civilian, injury and death) or to repel an invading force?
| Because it's very likely that if your goal is the latter,
| putting a gun in everyone's hand regardless of their skill with
| it might be the best course of action.
| tyingq wrote:
| You might be surprised how little weapons training many actual
| soldiers get.
| [deleted]
| squarefoot wrote:
| This is a war that is also fought online. It is extremely
| important to keep the flow of information running from Ukraine.
| Putin will very likely order to shut down cellphone coverage and
| the Internet in Ukraine as soon as they full enter Kyiv and he'll
| fear about reports of either mass killings among civilians and/or
| defeats among the Russian military; such information reaching
| both the world and Russian people is what he fears the most.
| Shutting down communications would be also a problem for keeping
| the resistance interconnected, as common analog walkie talkies
| wouldn't be an option for being easy to tap, and they essentially
| speak the same language. I wonder what can be done to quickly
| hand Ukrainians satellite Internet routers plus the
| infrastructure to build mesh stations and keep them connected.
| helge9210 wrote:
| > Putin will very likely order to shut down cellphone coverage
| and the Internet in Ukraine
|
| It's easy to shut down internet in Belarus or Kazakhstan,
| because they deliberately wired their connectivity through
| single control point.
|
| Ukraine has multiple cross-border connections and exchange
| points within, so it's not just a press of a button, but a full
| blown min-cut max-flow adventure.
| tpmx wrote:
| I'm amazed they've managed to keep the country online for so
| long during this war. Points to solid groundwork since 2014.
|
| Vice PM of Ukraine:
|
| https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo/status/14975436332932669...
|
| _@elonmusk, while you try to colonize Mars -- Russia try to
| occupy Ukraine! While your rockets successfully land from space
| -- Russian rockets attack Ukrainian civil people! We ask you to
| provide Ukraine with Starlink stations and to address sane
| Russians to stand._
| jonsty2023 wrote:
| /s russian ddos attack
| belter wrote:
| "Offense and Defense"
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220129201329/https://armypubs....
|
| "Urban Operations"
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220120161007/https://armypubs....
|
| "Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain"
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220214151137/https://rdl.train...
| Ambix wrote:
| What about the same advice for the citizens of Iran, Iraq,
| Afghanistan? Should they have fought for their liberty against US
| troops the same way?
| jacobolus wrote:
| US troops have never invaded Iran. Maybe you are thinking of
| the 1980 Iraqi invasion?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran
|
| The 1953 coup in Iran was organized/supported by the CIA, but
| did not involve US troops.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27etat
|
| During the 1979-1980 US embassy hostage crisis, there was an
| aborted attempt to rescue American hostages.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
| hbarka wrote:
| Supplies through a siege a logistical nightmare
| biohax2015 wrote:
| Through Poland would be my guess.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are also NATO members
| bordering Ukraine. Lots of ways in and out.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Possibly via any of the EU countries sharing a border with
| Ukraine i.e. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary or Romania.
|
| https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/countries-in-europe/eu-coun...
| jl6 wrote:
| I'm wondering how supplying weapons is supposed to stay clear
| of Putin's warning to other nations not to interfere or face
| instant consequences.
| sharpneli wrote:
| Putin cannot really do much. West fully joining the war would
| mean nuclear exchange. But Puting ending the world due to
| weapons shipments? Very unlikely.
| e-clinton wrote:
| What is Putin going to do? Bomb a NATO country? That won't
| end well for him or anyone else.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Putin has a proxy - Belorussia, controlled by a same-type
| ageing dictator Lukashenko. He is doing a military
| mobilization right now and has borders with Poland and
| Baltic states.
| einarfd wrote:
| Belorussia attacking a NATO country ends at best in it
| being occupied by NATO, at worst in the same war between
| NATO and Russia that Putin don't want in the first place.
| beefield wrote:
| I don't think it is sensible at the moment to take into
| account what Putin says or has not said. It is obvious his
| words have no resemblance whatsoever to his actions. He does
| not need excuses to attack other countries.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Not intervening is a sure way to have delayed consequences
| from same aggressor, of same or worse manner. This isn't
| about Ukraine itself anymore, not with Russia/Soviet history
| of dominance, coercion, bullying and murder. Nothing has
| changed in the leadership, not for the better at least.
|
| I _really_ don 't get people who are naive about Putin. He is
| extremely clear in his communication about his goals and he
| just started yet another phase of realizing them. For those
| won't bother going through them - the goal is pre-1989 setup
| at least within Europe and near east. All the countries
| formerly enslaved by Russian communism in some form have very
| strong objections, and well the rest of free world seems to
| agree.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Airdrop it in Poland, Slovakia or Romania, drive it across the
| border.
| qnsi wrote:
| The article links to Army Doctrine. I am surprised to find it
| open to people outside of army.
|
| Does anyone perhaps know if there is resource like this for Army
| communication? I would be most interested in not combat
| communication where they have to give orders, but maybe where
| they have more time to share opinions down and up the hierarchy,
| maybe garher intel.
|
| I think it could be useful to management science, but havent
| found anyone trying to icorpate defense learnings into management
| mcguire wrote:
| You might poke around https://armypubs.army.mil/ This kind of
| thing is scattered all over the place, but it's generally
| publicly available.
|
| How about
| https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18314-ADP_6-...
|
| There are also
|
| https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I would likewise be interested in communication systems that
| are social systems rather than tech systems (I.e. what do you
| do when phone/internet systems collapse?) Though I suppose that
| is probably only appropriate for an insurgency as you would
| have/use radio tech...
| master_crab wrote:
| The the majority of the US Army's (and most other DoD branches
| and agencies) regulations and doctrine are unclassified and
| available to the public. You can probably search most of the
| relevant publications you want at armypubs.army.mil.
|
| I don't believe it is behind an authentication wall.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| My personal favorite (which IIRC I first saw posted here on
| HN) is ATP 3-18.13: SPECIAL FORCES USE OF PACK ANIMALS
|
| On top of useful information about a llama's ideal body
| temperature and the amount of water that a camel needs every
| day, it contains gems like this:
|
| Elephants are not the easygoing, kind, loving creatures that
| people believe them to be. They are, of course, not evil
| either. They simply follow their biological pattern, shaped
| by evolution.
| jessaustin wrote:
| I've ridden elephants before, and I would be _very_
| hesitant to even approach them, let alone load them down
| with cargo, without an experienced handler supervising
| everything.
| einarfd wrote:
| In addition there is being around an elephant under fire.
| That sounds a lot like making a horrible situation way
| worse.
| b_emery wrote:
| Given the lead up to this, is there any evidence that the
| Ukranians have taken these kinds of measures?
| madengr wrote:
| roveo wrote:
| Interesting, just yesterday I discussed with a friend of mine how
| dumb it is for Putin to attack and try to capture Kiev, because
| urban warfare is very difficult and usually leads to very heavy
| casualties. She asked "why?" and I realised that I have an
| intuitive understanding about this because I've played Call of
| Duty and she hasn't (obviously not saying that CoD is
| representative of actual war, but you get the idea of what a
| sniper or machine gun nest in a city is just from game
| mechanics). Things that are obvious for some people are
| absolutely not obvious for others.
|
| Btw, Pavlov's House defence is mentioned in the article and
| there's a corresponding mission in CoD.
| structural wrote:
| You can look at CoD and similar games as being very basic
| introductory material to military ground operations - building
| a surprising amount of intuition from a young age. It's also
| useful as a propaganda & recruitment tool.
| Animats wrote:
| For how to _attack_ a city, see "Urban Operations", the U.S.
| Army/USMC doctrinal publication.[1]
|
| The two documents view different kinds of war. The USMA pub
| describes historic WWII city defenses where the defenders held
| out against armor for long periods, at the cost of high
| casualties and destroying the city. That is, Stalingrad. The US
| doctrinal pub describes US-style modern wars of taking over a
| city without too much collateral damage, followed by "stability
| operations". That is, Baghdad.
|
| [1]
| https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6452...
| ivanhoe wrote:
| Whether you will have one or the other depends also a lot on
| the determination, preparedness and fire-power of the
| defenders. In Iraq majority was against Saddam and didn't
| really want to fight, while people in Ukraine cities seem to be
| very united and determined to defend every house, and also have
| been supplied with a lot of personal anti-armor weapons and had
| months to plan the defenses - so regardless of the Russian
| doctrine, I really doubt Russian army will be able to move fast
| this time... unfortunately, as you said, that means a lot more
| civilian casualties, and a lot more destruction...
| dnadler wrote:
| There's also a good chapter on urban defense in there. Chapter
| 5
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Curious honest question, has there _ever_ been a successful urban
| attack in the past, say, 30 years, where the urban population by-
| and-large really doesn 't want the attackers to be there?
|
| I mean, when I look at urban warfare, I think of the following
| possible outcomes:
|
| 1. Total annihilation, e.g. Warsaw at the end of WWII.
|
| 2. Splitting the city up into factional neighborhoods. Possible
| but given the situation in Kiev, there don't seem to be many
| Russian supporters there anong the native population (this is not
| true in Eastern Ukrainian cities)
|
| 3. Subduing the defenders and installing a puppet government. I
| think the best model here appears to be the Soviet Union crushing
| the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
|
| #3 seems like the most obvious intention of Putin, but I just
| don't really see how that is possible in modern Kyiv. In 1956
| Budapest there were plenty of Communist supporters - indeed, they
| were the ones in power before the revolution.
|
| The "best" outcome I can see from this war is that Putin
| completes the annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk, with possibly
| some other eastern regions e.g. a full land bridge from Crimea to
| Donetsk, as well as Kharkiv, but I just don't understand the
| attack on all of Ukraine. If anything you'll just get a further
| sorting of the country where everyone who despises Russia moves
| to the west and everyone else decides to stay/move to Russian-
| occupied areas.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I'm confident the attack on the whole Ukraine is to prevent
| Western weapon supplied counter attacks. I doubt they have long
| term plans for occupation for the entire country.
| nest0r wrote:
| Russia doesn't have the logistical power to have an
| occupational force. They need to implement a strawman
| government and hope that the military falls into place.
| int_19h wrote:
| Russia has the Donbass separatist militias, which would
| make for a perfect occupation force - they are
| ideologically motivated, but also, they know that they'll
| be treated as traitors by any Ukrainian state with more
| than a semblance of independence.
| chefkoch wrote:
| Aleppo?
| SergeAx wrote:
| Battle of Grozny (1994-1995) may be called "successful", but
| overall it was a Pyrrhic victory. It also took an extremely
| talented general Rokhlin to take command of a large part of
| operation. I don't think Russia has military commanders of his
| proportion now due to 20 years of negative selection.
| [deleted]
| sullivanmatt wrote:
| Mirror
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220223141210/https://mwi.usma....
| mlinksva wrote:
| Interesting read. I guess it's self-evident, but not having
| thought about the topic, the utility of rubble and repurposing
| semi-destroyed structures, as well as how important snipers are,
| were new to me. Maybe the importance of snipers makes civilians
| being handed out guns in Kyiv now seem less futile.
|
| Would be interested to read a basic explainer along these lines
| on "How to Rebuild a City" -- I guess one divergence from urban
| planning/development literature would be on how to reuse rubble?
| Given the many destroyed cities through history including this
| century which have been at least partially reubilt (perhaps
| Grozny was first of this century?) I guess there must be plenty
| written on this topic.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I don't know about writing or research on the subject but I
| live in a city in western Poland. In some sense you could say
| we are still "rebuilding" today. Much of the brick extracted
| from the rubble was from what I know, used as building material
| in the 50's and 60's. Near to where I live, there is a
| rectangular hill, some 6-7 stories tall and there is a large
| park on it. It's pretty huge. It's made up of all the rubble
| that was cleared from the area (which was a large neighborhood
| that was 99% destroyed during Soviet siege/offensive in 1944).
| Rebuilding cities after wars takes forever.
| eCa wrote:
| A small example would be the main church of Dresden[1], in
| what was Eastern Germany. Destroyed by the allied bombings of
| 1945, it was left as rubble[2] in the middle of town all
| through communist rule. The rebuild was completed in 2005.
|
| Rebuilding entire cities is another thing altogether. And
| even if there is a new city built where the old one was
| standing, so much history has been lost.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden#/medi
| a/F...
| belter wrote:
| "...In September 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Russian
| Sergeant Yakov Pavlov and his platoon seized a four-story
| apartment building--later dubbed "Pavlov's House"--overlooking
| a large square. The building had long lines of sight from three
| sides. Pavlov's men place barbed wire and antipersonnel and
| antitank mines around the building, smashed and cut holes in
| walls to create interior walkways, and placed machine-gun
| firing points in the building's corners. They would move to the
| cellar as indirect fire struck the top of the building or to
| higher floors when German Panzers approached so they could fire
| antitank rifles down onto the tanks' vulnerable, thin roofs.
| Pavlov and his men held the building for fifty-eight days
| against numerous mechanized and combined arms attacks, causing
| an unknown number of German vehicle and soldier kills in the
| process..."
| cortesoft wrote:
| Wouldn't they just target the building with a cruise middle
| these days?
| belter wrote:
| Those cost a million dollars a piece.
|
| Russians have serious logistical problems now. There are
| Twitter videos of some of their tank crews stuck on
| Ukrainian roads without fuel and being taunted and asked if
| they want for a ride back to Russia by Ukrainian passers
| by.
|
| https://twitter.com/RihoTerras/status/1497537193346220038
| int_19h wrote:
| These cost a million dollars a piece _to Americans_. I 'm
| not sure how much Russia pays for each Caliber cruise
| missile, but the (short-range ballistic rather than
| cruise) Tochka-U is somewhere around $150k.
|
| Also, for what it's worth, Russia used 26 Caliber
| missiles on a _single day_ in Syria back in 2015.
| bambataa wrote:
| That tweet has been shared a lot but is there any
| indication that any of it is true?
|
| And even if it is, doesn't that just mean Russia will
| move from the quick strike strategy to a more bloody,
| full assault?
| belter wrote:
| They are having to supply fuel, food and ammunition to
| 200,000 men over a 500 Km distance in hostile territory.
| You would need a fantastic logistical operation to be
| able to support that even in your own country.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I read about the Lebanese civil war a few years ago and it was
| pretty eye opening. Urban warfare seems terrifying from the
| perspective of the attacker.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| If you are in a group and a sniper hits someone that isn't an
| instant kill, what do you do? Take cover and let them die, or
| run in the line of fire and try to help or try to find the
| sniper?
| sobriquet9 wrote:
| Take cover and throw them a rope.
| mulmen wrote:
| I suggest watching Full Metal Jacket.
| peakaboo wrote:
| Snipers intentionally shoot to not kill sometimes, so they
| get more targets.
| bluGill wrote:
| That isn't allowed by the Geneva convention. It is very
| effective though, so I'm sure it is done.
| vhgyu75e6u wrote:
| You make it sound like it is intentionally done but if
| the shooter is far away/has poor accuracy and the soldier
| has body armor, chances are he will be incapacitated but
| not killed. After that the question is: is more morally
| ok to killed the downed soldier or wait for his unit who
| is still and active aggressor.
| tradertef wrote:
| If your country is invaded, would you care about Geneva
| convention?
| pc86 wrote:
| The number one objective is to not become another injured
| person or body that needs to be handled. You always take
| cover first then decide next moves.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Kill the sniper. Don't fixate on casualties. Slice the pie,
| identify probable locations, send teams to neutralize the
| threat.
| jmyeet wrote:
| 100% Putin is the bad guy here. There's no justification for
| invasion. None.
|
| That being said, we need to look at how we got here, maybe what
| should've happened instead and what can be done to hopefully
| defuse and resolve this situation.
|
| First, dangling the carrot of NATO membership, which because with
| George W Bush's swansong in a NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008
| (and hasn't been changed by any subsequent administration) was
| dangerous and deliberately antagonistic to Russia. This was
| compounded by successive waves of expansion after the collapse of
| the Soviet Union, the entity NATO was supposedly created to
| defend against.
|
| Second, Zelensky seems out of his depth here (geopolitically) and
| should've realized this. The annexation of Crimea in 2014
| should've raised the alarm bells here both that embracing to the
| West was dangerous and because of the threat of Russia unlikely
| to ever happen. This means another route needs to be paved.
|
| Third, outright refusing to take NATO membership off the
| negotiating table by the US (which, as noted, was never going to
| happen) was downright irresponsible and clueless, particularly
| when the US would never put troops into Ukraine and directly get
| into a military conflict with Russia. That alone should prompt a
| less hardline approach.
|
| This brings me to the substance of the article and a model that
| should've been pursued by the Ukrainian government. And that is
| one of neutrality, probably most similar to the Swiss model. This
| would include:
|
| 1. A consitutional amendment against joining any military
| alliance;
|
| 2. A consitutional amendment for military neutrality that might
| include, for example, not allowing passage by any foreign
| military without, say, the approval of both Russia and NATO;
|
| 3. National service, say 12 months.
|
| 4. A policy of building a defensive army. That means fixed
| military installations, particularly on entry points into
| Ukraine. It also means tactical rather than strategic weapons;
|
| 5. Equipping and training armed services in insurgency. Hardened
| communications, access to caches of small arms in the vent of
| invasion and access to weapons that have shown to be devastating
| against an occupying force (eg portable SAMs).
|
| 6. Exercises and planning for defending Ukraine against large
| outside military forces. The idea here isn't necessarily to win
| in such a conflict but to make the cost of victory and occupation
| so high as to deter it from happening.
|
| You would probably need additional steps to protect legitimate
| Russian economic interests, most specifically pipelines of oil
| and gas to the EU and deepwater port access to the Black Sea.
|
| As for disputed regions, you may need to adopt a model similar
| to, say, Nortern Ireland of joint control and semi-autonomy while
| still being with the borders of Ukraine.
| Marazan wrote:
| So just to be clear you think in the face of having territory
| annexed they should have rolled over and done what Putin
| wanted?
|
| Ukraine never joined NATO and never joined the EU.
|
| They still got invaded.
|
| You've written a lot of words justifying the invasion despite
| saying there was no justification.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| An appeasement-style solution like this is predicated on the
| assumption that the expansion of NATO is the actual reason
| behind this war, and not just a convenient pretext. There's no
| consensus about that. Putin has a history of meddling in
| neighbouring states, and could use a distraction from domestic
| problems.
| rurabe wrote:
| What about incorporating Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Russia
| into NATO?
|
| Ukraine gets the Donbas back in return for international
| recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.
|
| Fanciful, I know. And questionable whether Article 8 would hold
| up. But advantages:
|
| 1. End to the conflict 2. Security guarantees for all of Europe
| 3. Repurposing of NATO from anti Russia alliance to anti China
| alliance, ie pivot to Asia
| nebukhadnezar wrote:
| How many examples do you need to finally realize that the naive
| appeasement strategy does not work with Putin 10, 20?
| xixixao wrote:
| I doubt it. Even fully "neutral" Ukraine, if modern,
| democratic, prosperous, would have been extremely dangerous to
| any corrupt autocrat in Russia. This is appeasement approach
| that WWII should have taught us not to take. Russian official
| are literally complaining about weak West response. Instead the
| NATO membership should have been accelerated, with the path for
| Russia to enter it in the future. Even Putin mentioned he asked
| Clinton about it. But he is obviously the sticking point.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The problem with the appeasement argument is that we're not
| talking about 1939 Germany. We're talking about Russia, the
| country with the largest nuclear arsenal on EArth (yes, even
| larger than the US nuclear arsenal). The analogy isn't
| remotely similar or appropriate.
|
| Let me put it another way: what is the alternative? We're
| clearly not going to put boots on the ground. NATO does not
| want a member country directly on the Russian border,
| particularly a large border as Ukraine and Russia have. The
| US (and the rest of NATO for that matter) simply does not
| want to get dragged into a conflict on Russia's borders.
| That's it.
|
| The US would never accept a military alliance between Russia
| or China with Mexico and Canada that allows Russia or China
| to build military bases along the US border. So why should we
| be surprised that the "F** the USSR" military alliance may
| end up building bases on Russia's borders?
| pawelos wrote:
| > NATO does not want a member country directly on the
| Russian border
|
| There are already two NATO countries directly on the
| Russian border. Four if you count Kaliningrad. Five if
| Finland joins.
|
| Edit:
|
| I've looked at the map and it turns out Norway also borders
| Russia, so +1 to all the calculations :)
| jmyeet wrote:
| I should probably say a significant border with Russia.
| Norway's border with Russia for example is a narrow
| sliver of mountains. It's completely insignificant.
| Finland isn't part of this because they're not a NATO
| member. The Baltic states (Latvia and Estonia; Lithuania
| doesn't obrder Russia) are a little more nuanced. I
| imagine that was a tough pill for Russia to swallow but
| again the borders are small. Poland and Kaliningrad is
| also more of a technaclity.
|
| This map [1] puts the size of the borders in perspective
| and also why Russia has made Belarus effectively a client
| state. And also why Georgia is in a similar position as a
| buffer between Russia and Turkey.
|
| But Ukraine is of particular strategic importance to
| Russia not only because of the expansive border but
| because Ukraine is relatively flat. Here's a map of the
| Operation Barbarossa invasion route [2]. It was largely
| through what is now Belarus to the north and Ukraine to
| the south.
|
| I can't find a similar map but I believe Napoleon
| followed a similar route.
|
| While niether of these two campaigns were successful,
| quite famously, it's merely a function of geography.
|
| Additionally, Ukraine's position is even more significant
| because it potentially threaten's Russia's access to the
| Black Sea and the occupited territory of Crimea.
|
| [1]: https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/countries_europe_
| map-L.jp...
|
| [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/
| Marcks_P...
| jcranmer wrote:
| If you really want to be pedantic, the US and Russia have
| a sea border.
|
| If you count EEZ's, Russia's and Turkey's EEZ border each
| other in the Black Sea, as would Romania's if you believe
| Crimea (and hence its associated EEZ) to be part of
| Russia.
| chefkoch wrote:
| Why would someone trust this.
|
| Russia recognised the ukrainian borders in 1994 in exchange for
| them giving up their nukes.
| zczc wrote:
| I doubt any concession from the Ukraine would satisfy Putin.
| See https://fablesofaesop.com/the-wolf-and-the-lamb.html
| jmyeet wrote:
| That's in a similar vein to the "Putin is a madman"
| arguments. Whether or not it's true, it's completley
| unhelpful. Simple game theory here gives you the options of
| trying diplomatic options and not trying. If he's a madman it
| doesn't matter. If ithe's not it might.
|
| What that actually shows you is there is literally no
| downside to diplomacy because at worst it doesn't matter. To
| assume that your opponent isn't at least a semi-rational
| actor that wants something they're prepared to negotiate for
| is just throwing your hands in the air and saying "I've tried
| nothing but I'm all out of ideas".
| yosito wrote:
| What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what is
| Ukraine's end game? They seem to be doing a pretty good job of
| destroying invading force so far, but what's next? They either
| run out of steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia,
| but then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done
| with it. The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if
| they won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction,
| they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either. Is
| getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only hope?
| Teever wrote:
| Ukraine's endgame is to inflict so many casualties and destroy
| so much equipment that the Russians have no choice but to turn
| back in shame which along with sanctions from the rest of the
| world will hopefully lead to an uprising by the Russian people
| and an overthrow of Putin and his Oligarchs.
| yosito wrote:
| If it reaches that point, wouldn't a desperate Putin likely
| launch nukes as a last resort before being overthrown?
| xtian wrote:
| Willing to put money on any of that?
| tlear wrote:
| Kyiv will fall. But Kyiv is not whole of Ukraine. West
| Ukraine hates russians a lot more, it has a long border
| with Polland. There is something like 1million Ukranians
| living in Polland.. there is already a stream of volunteers
| crossing the border heading east.
|
| Cost of Ukrainian occupation is going to be high. Can that
| stop russians? we don't know, but they will pay in blood
| and money. This is not Syria or Georgia where small
| professional units could make a difference. This is a huge
| country with a big population and a long border through
| which weapons and volunteers will flow.
|
| I had my doubts about Ukranian will to fight(I was born in
| Kyiv), I was wrong. I think Putin miscalculated quite a
| bit.
| xtian wrote:
| The terms of surrender Putin is asking for are:
|
| - Ukraine remains neutral
|
| - No foreign weapons in Ukraine
|
| No regime change, no occupation. I wonder why you're
| talking about that. Can you explain why those terms are
| unacceptable?
| einarfd wrote:
| Not from Ukraine, so I can't answer the questions. But it
| seems to me that Putin lies a lot. So who knows what the
| acctual terms he wants is?
| kemyke wrote:
| But now Russia brings foreign weapons to Ukraine, right?
| macintux wrote:
| "No foreign weapons" means Russia can just come back in
| whenever they feel like it.
| schroeding wrote:
| Putin literally asked the ukrainian armed forces to
| putsch against Zelenskyy yesterday.[1]
|
| The whole "reason" of the russian invasion is the pretext
| of a "de-nazifikation" of the ukrainian government (which
| is a *insane* claim).
|
| It appears very strange to me to think that Putin will
| accept anything other than a total regime change.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-
| ukraine-milit...
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| > Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?
|
| It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their
| own destiny.
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| > So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by
| Western masters
|
| Regardless of your political opinion, it doesn't negate
| the fact that people still want the _freedom to choose_
| xtian wrote:
| Ok that's fine. That freedom comes along with
| consequences for your actions. So don't complain when
| they manifest
| magicalist wrote:
| "stop attacking yourself with my army" is not exactly a
| philosophical slam dunk.
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| Indeed, and the same goes for Russia, my friend. Speaking
| of consequences manifesting: If Russia had not failed so
| spectacularly with the USSR, perhaps we wouldn't be in
| this situation.
| xtian wrote:
| So free to be used as a chess piece against Russia by
| Western masters
| beefield wrote:
| Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine
| from being used by West. How noble.
|
| Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country
| should not have the freedom to make their own choice
| whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?
| xtian wrote:
| No - Russia is defending the Donetsk and Lugansk People's
| Republics where Ukrainian nationalists have killed over
| 14,000 men, women, and children over the past eight years
| by shelling civilian areas.
|
| The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk
| agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.
|
| edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts
| for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal
| values, don't we folks?
| beefield wrote:
| Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that
| requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable
| (implying that it is fine to attack another country if
| they do not abide to the request).
|
| Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?
| adrian_b wrote:
| Anyone who knows the history of the relationships between
| Russia and all of its neighbors understands that no such
| terms can be accepted.
|
| Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice
| neighbor.
|
| For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its
| successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened
| their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched
| unprovoked attacks against them.
|
| Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an
| ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices
| that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied
| in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia
| would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.
|
| Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been
| listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that
| has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.
|
| The consequences were always that later Russia came with
| even more shameless demands or it just attacked and
| occupied partially or totally the neighbor.
|
| There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a
| different manner than his ancestors, so there is no
| rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian
| demands can guarantee that they will stop at that,
| instead of demanding even more later.
|
| For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that
| circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:
|
| Where are the frontiers of Russia ? Wherever they want
| ...
| jb1991 wrote:
| For me the greatest outcome is not that Ukraine successfully
| defends itself but that the Russian people defeat Putin
| themselves, that this war opens their eyes to a change that
| is actually possible by the masses.
| Teever wrote:
| Absolutely. I also think that calls for other countries to
| help Ukraine with troops are premature.
|
| Look at Afghanistan, the US spent decades with troops on
| the ground, rebuilding every single institution only to
| have it all collapse before they even pulled out. In the
| end the people of Afghanistan didn't feel any ownership in
| any of it because they didn't build it, so when it came
| time to defend it they didn't.
|
| I think that the US has learned from that, and in the 8
| years since Putin invaded Crimea they have been equipping
| and training the Ukrainians to defend their own country. If
| the people of Ukraine make it out of this as an independent
| country it will a historical moment signifying that Ukraine
| as a nation is here to stay for the long term because their
| citizens believe in the institutions and the ideals of
| their nation.
|
| What I hope for the most from this conflict is the
| development of stable democracies in both Ukraine and
| Russia.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| And if anyone is skeptical this can work, I refer you to
| Vietnam, Afghanistan, the American Revolution, and a few
| cases where even the Romans would decide to pack it in with a
| "these people are crazy, they're never going to stop and it's
| not worth it."
|
| It's too optimistic to think this will be the end of Putin,
| _but_ if by chance it happens, it will not be the first time
| a catastrophic war lead to the overthrow of the Russian
| government.
| krona wrote:
| No need for nukes. Kyiv will become a Sarajevo II. Our TV
| screens will be full of starving children which will eventually
| force a surrender (or a pretext for a NATO intervention.)
| ben_w wrote:
| Or a Berlin Airlift II.
|
| I didn't know before I moved here that the GDR authorities
| officially referred to the Berlin Wall as the
| _Antifaschistischer Schutzwall_ (Anti-Fascist Protection
| Rampart), which matches some of Putin's recent rhetoric.
| megous wrote:
| Have you seen the map of areas around Kyiv? It's woods left
| and right and a flat land. How's a siege even going to work?
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| > Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with
| it. The West seems intent on not getting involved
|
| Involving nukes would quickly get everyone involved. No one
| wants nuclear war.
| password54321 wrote:
| Except potentially a desperate Putin. I do think the only
| hope is the Russian military not following him at that point.
| hk__2 wrote:
| > Except potentially a desperate Putin.
|
| No. Putin is not crazy; he knows it would be stupid to do
| so.
| ajross wrote:
| That's the conventional picture of Putin: he's a
| calculating, amoral, Machiavellian genius playing the
| west like a fiddle.
|
| Recent events have... not been kind to that theory. Putin
| certainly seems off. Nothing about this invasion makes
| sense strategically, and that was true even back when we
| thought it would be executed competently!
| yosito wrote:
| > Putin is not crazy
|
| From what I've seen, he may be the most delusional human
| being alive.
| password54321 wrote:
| If Putin fails this, it is over for him. There is no
| turning back from this and continuing to lead the
| country. The whole idea of invading can be classified as
| crazy and was not expected to actually happen by many. I
| just wouldn't underestimate him if he is backed into a
| corner.
| pell wrote:
| >If Putin fails this, it is over for him.
|
| Does not have to be the case. If the loyalists around him
| don't topple him he can sell this one way or another to
| the Russian public. I think a lot of people outside of
| Russia think it's some heavily censored, propaganda-
| fueled place. Most Russians are actually very skeptical
| of what their government says, it's very common to roll
| one's eyes at official statements. However, this does not
| change the wish to remain powerful even if just in a
| self-preserving image. If that does not work, the
| victimhood card also is often used successfully. If Putin
| can remain popular and the cronies around him don't
| replace him it would not have to be over for him at all.
| lstodd wrote:
| Putin is crazy. This was established as early as 1999,
| multiple public declarations in 2014.
| nest0r wrote:
| Meh... some guard will stand up and give him a bullet.
| Nuclear war will never happen.
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm just guessing of course but I would think the goal is to
| defeat the invading force. Once they're gone there's not
| necessarily a need to hit back at Russia. My hope would be that
| Russia wouldn't send another round of attacks because the
| hotter this gets, the more risk of other countries coming to
| Ukraine's aid to stop atrocities. In fact that could even be a
| hope for Ukraine.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| You need to understand what Putin believes.
|
| He believes in the Russian Empire, in the "Third Rome" and
| Ukraine is important because Kyiv was the capital of the first
| Rus empire 1000 years ago.
|
| It's also the "origin myth" that gets propagated to the Russian
| armed forces (see Cathedral of the Armed Forces) and public.
| Also, will the oligarchs continue to support him it he just
| takes a scorched earth approach? Will the armed forces? If the
| myth fades who will follow?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I think the end game is likely "make it costly enough to stay",
| so Russia makes a face-saving withdrawal on a "we successfully
| demilitarized Ukraine by getting rid of a lot of their military
| equipment" basis.
| lstodd wrote:
| There no more is any face to save.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Ukraine's end game is to try to bleed Russia until they decide
| to withdraw. I don't think "hitting back" is ever on the table,
| if you mean Ukraine invading Russia. That's not going to
| happen.
|
| Russia could still unload a few nukes. If you can't take Kiev,
| you can always nuke it. But that has a number of problems. One
| of the smaller ones is it's really hard to maintain the "oh,
| that's not really an independent nation, they're really part of
| Russia" lie when you nuke them.
| baybal2 wrote:
| _> They seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying
| invading force so far, but what 's next? They either run out of
| steam defending, or they start to hit back at Russia, but then
| Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done with
| it._
|
| Two options:
|
| 1) Push until Rostov, and take Black Sea access from Russia. If
| they manage to destroy a big portion of invading force, there
| will certainly be nobody to defend it, as they already "spent"
| a big part of Southern Military District force. They will also
| be under cover of their own air defence, and Russia not, as it
| already moved all its Buks into Ukraine.
|
| 2) A daring move to capture Volgograd. Why? Again, its would be
| defenders are in forests of Belarus now, doing nothing, running
| out of supplies. Volgograd is the most militarily significant
| city in South Russia.
|
| Big portion of of Russia's low readiness units are stationed in
| the middle of nowhere in Urals, and West Siberia.
|
| The elite Souther Military District (circle sign) units are
| already locked in Crimea, and inside Southern Ukraine
| k__ wrote:
| Sure, they could nuke them, but what would they gain?
|
| I don't think, Putin wants radioactive wastelands so close to
| his border. And I think the political implications, even in
| Russia itself would be devastating for him.
| rurabe wrote:
| The military endgame sadly is somewhere between a destroyed
| Ukraine in perpetual conflict and regime change, depending on
| the efficacy of Ukrainian resistance.
|
| Sorry to say, autocrats do not withdraw from a conflict like
| this regardless of attrition. Their power is their legitimacy
| and defeat is a threat to both their rule and probably their
| life. I mean look at how much flak Biden took withdrawing from
| Afghanistan despite being able to say that it was a horrible
| idea and someone else's fault.
|
| This is a little different from Afghanistan and Iraq though,
| Russia's security concerns are valid and probably ameliorated
| by Ukraine as a failed state (as opposed to a NATO aligned
| state) so conquering and pacifying the country is not
| necessary.
|
| The only real humanitarian solution is a diplomatic solution. I
| wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia will
| never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I wonder if written guarantees that Ukraine and Georgia
| will never join NATO would be enough now honestly.
|
| They would never have been enough; that was the abusive
| partner going "if you'd just do x I wouldn't have to hit you
| so much". Consider the ease with which Russia violated their
| own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Sec
| urit...).
| rurabe wrote:
| Honestly, I fear the resistance being too effective.
|
| Russia is on the offensive when viewing this conflict in
| isolation. Zoom out to geopolitics and it is very much on the
| defensive.
|
| They are locked in this conflict and if they cannot achieve
| their goals they will escalate. They also own the most
| nuclear weapons of any country on earth.
|
| This is what the Art of War says when it says not to put
| enemies in a corner.
|
| This is also a very realpolitik take on this. It goes without
| saying that all of this is a humanitarian disaster.
| jcranmer wrote:
| There's a few possible endgames for Ukraine.
|
| The best scenario for Ukraine is that they're able to check the
| Russian invasion, and prevent troops from reaching and
| occupying Kyiv and other major cities, causing the war to drag
| on in a stalemate. If it goes well for them, the Russian will
| to press the invasion collapses, and they withdraw without
| winning any concessions. Note that I do not think this is at
| all _likely_.
|
| The more likely scenario (that ends "well" for Ukraine) is that
| Russia successfully pushes its invasion to completion and
| installs a new government, but the invasion shifts to a phase
| of intense resistance (see, e.g., Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan)
| that ultimately collapses the moment Russian troops pull out,
| perhaps with similar speed as the Afghani government collapsed
| after the US's withdrawal.
|
| Both of those scenarios assume that a combination of economic
| sanctions and unpopularity of the war are sufficient to prevent
| Russia from maintaining troops in Ukraine indefinitely, which
| is an assumption that may or may not be true (and I think there
| are very few people who are qualified enough to credibly opine
| on its truth!). If the assumption is wrong, then the conflict
| might stabilize in a conflict that looks like Nargano-Karabakh
| (~30 years), Cyprus (~50 years), or Korea (~70 years).
|
| It's possible to theorize about a scenario in which Ukraine
| does so well that they're able to counterattack and retake
| control of Crimea and the Donbass, or even punch into Russia,
| but such a scenario is so unlikely that I think it should
| rightly be considered fantasy.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Throwing nukes at Ukraine is not going to happen. First, it
| will likely force the west into action (the current inaction is
| in part caused by the promise of no nukes, which would be void
| if Russia starts using them), but it comes with much larger
| problems. For one, the key locations in Ukraine are quite close
| to the Russian border and Kyiv and Moscow itself are only about
| 750km apart; the fallout would directly affect Russia and maybe
| even Moscow. Secondly, Ukraine is rather useless to Russia as a
| nuclear wasteland. They need the strategic position, yes, but
| that's quite useless if you can't keep troops there, and they
| also need the people and the infrastructure. That they
| currently keep civilian infrastructure mostly intact shows as
| much.
|
| I'm pretty sure their endgame is to fend of Russia long enough
| until it ceases military action, possibly with loosing some
| border territory. Due to cost, sanctions and internal
| resistance, it's quite likely that they won't fight this
| forever.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What I'm wondering, with Russia being a nuclear power, what
| is Ukraine's end game?
|
| As with all asymmetrical warfare against invasion and
| occupation, bleed the invader until the price exceeds what they
| are willing to pay.
|
| > then Russia could just unload a few nukes on them and be done
| with it.
|
| That would probably be terminal for the Russian regime.
|
| > The West seems intent on not getting involved, and if they
| won't risk conflict now due to mutually assured destruction,
| they won't risk it after Russia uses nukes on Ukraine either
|
| Nuking Ukraine over conventional escalation against invasion
| _lowers_ the expected marginal cost of NATO involvement.
|
| Deterrence calculus relies as much on confidence that _not_
| crossing conventionally understood escalation triggers will
| _not_ provoke the response one hopes to avoid as on the
| confidence that crossing them will.
|
| > Is getting the Russian military to turn on Putin the only
| hope
|
| The collapse of will to fight and support the war, whether in
| the troops or the public, is always the ultimate constraint on
| war, whether the leadership drives to actual collapse or stops
| in advance because they see it coming.
| MrLeap wrote:
| Replace "Ukraine" with "Afghanistan" and "Russia" with "United
| States" might make the question easier. We have the benefit of
| hindsight there.
| paganel wrote:
| It can be, relatively speaking, quite easy to defend a city, the
| Syrian rebels in East Aleppo became quite good at it pretty fast,
| the same goes for the rebels in the Damascus neighbourhood of
| Jobar (for this latter example I recommend this video [1], it
| gives a general idea of how it well went; bear in mind that it
| was filmed from the pov of the government forces).
|
| The problem is that the attacking force at some point realises
| that the defendants are pretty well dug in and the commanders of
| those attacking forces also realise that one of the few solutions
| available in order to achieve victory is to, almost quite
| literally, flatten the city. That's what happened in East Aleppo
| (with the help of the Russian airforce), that's what happened in
| Jobar, too. Not sure if the flattening of Kyiv would be the best
| thing for the Ukranian people going forward.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZXPhmR7lQ
| trhway wrote:
| The Chezhoslovakia 68 scenario - quick takeover of the capital
| center with the central government - that Putin planned has
| already failed, in particular Russia failed to take the
| airfields near Kiev and can't bring the quick assault forces.
|
| Russia officially announced that they intentionally slowed the
| offense on Kiev now. That naturally a total BS. Ukrainians have
| won the opening, and Putin has no game forward. With German
| Stingers Russia's air superiority will be drastically reduced.
| Even flattening Kiev wouldn't help Putin as it is already
| obvious that Ukrainians will be shooting even from those piles
| of rubble Stalingrad style, and Ukrainian forces will be
| growing with each day while Russian dwindling.
|
| By moving onto Kiev right now Putin will be going down the
| Hitler's path of failed Blitzkrieg -> Stalingrad -> to be
| ultimately beaten back, in this case, to Moscow by the
| Ukrainian led coalition (there is no need for other countries
| to officially declare war as there is a well established
| pattern of well equipped volunteers, and there is no nuke issue
| as Russia will not strike its own territory, and in general
| Russians would hardly provide any resistance as the Putin's
| bottom really isn't worth it for them) with Nuremberg 2, etc.
| jacobolus wrote:
| While we are here, https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/
| content/issues/201...
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30475340) is pretty
| insightful about the capabilities and tactical limitations of
| the Russian army's BTG organization structure.
| int_19h wrote:
| Ukraine, even with volunteers from other countries, cannot
| take _Moscow_. And why do you believe that an authoritarian
| regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its
| survival is at stake?
| nine_zeros wrote:
| If Russia officially announced that they've intentionally
| slowed down with BS reasons, they failed in their first
| attempt and won't admit it.
| xapata wrote:
| They announced pausing, but didn't pause.
| somenameforme wrote:
| The other choice is a siege. See the Siege of Sarajevo [1]. A
| dramatically numerically inferior force (by 5:1) laid siege to
| a numerically superior, but poorly equipped, force that was
| intermittently supported by the UN/NATO. It lasted just under 4
| years, and ended in a stalemate and some absolute horror
| stories from survivors.
|
| And of course if a city under siege cannot get sufficient
| resources in and is not self sufficient (let alone while under
| siege), then a siege can end a conflict extremely quickly.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sarajevo
| squarefoot wrote:
| Flattening Kyiv is Putin's last resort: he can't retire and he
| can't drag things for too long, but should he give the order to
| level the city and reports would slip under the censorship to
| Russian people and the rest of the world, that would surely be
| the first day of his demise.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I wonder how much he cares about his reputation. Do the
| Russian people believe the lies?
| stickfigure wrote:
| If enough human rights abuses show up in media, NATO will
| grow a pair and get directly involved. That's probably
| Putin's biggest fear, and why he blusters so much. He
| thinks the west is decadent and cowardly. So far, in this
| case, he's been right.
|
| The thing about western democracies is that they respond to
| public sentiment. If the populations are seething with
| anger, they will want blood. _Especially_ the Americans.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| It has nothing to do with cowardice. If a hostile nation
| state is willing to burn resources holding territory that
| contains insurgent forces we would be stupid to
| discourage it. As americans well know, it is really hard
| to maintain an extended occupation without a loss of
| money, moral, and life.
| adventured wrote:
| At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with
| its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming
| the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off from
| their supply lines, make it difficult to get back out of
| Ukraine, and let the Ukrainians slaughter the captive
| invading force (which will promptly surrender as they
| realize what has happened).
|
| The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked
| into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should
| execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone
| over Ukraine.
|
| It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable
| if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army
| trivially in the field.
|
| Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So
| simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him
| or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their
| families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering
| peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no
| military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes
| for what they've done thus far re Ukraine).
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Are you on crack?
| lazide wrote:
| Very unlikely NATO (overall) would get involved even if
| there are serious atrocities. That'ts a fast path to
| nuclear war.
|
| They'll fortify heavily and the moment any Russian steps
| onto NATO member soil, they'll be repelled though.
|
| NATO is about mutual self defense, not invasion. Ukraine
| is caught in the middle between Russia and NATO.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Putin threatens nuclear war whenever he wants something.
| Nobody believes it. You think Putin will commit suicide -
| both for himself and his people - over Ukraine, which by
| now quite obviously doesn't want him, even to his own
| citizens?
| lazide wrote:
| You assume too much about Russia and Putin. Historically,
| the wests lack of understanding of motives and hard lines
| for Russia has almost caused several nuclear annihilation
| events.
|
| People sometimes have hard lines that are surprising, and
| will cause them to do things that no rational person
| would do. Militaries and organizations do too.
|
| War causes confusion, stress, anxiety, etc. which
| magnifies everything.
|
| It doesn't require 'sane putin' to push a button for
| someone somewhere to THINK it makes sense for him to and
| push the button in their exhausted and freaked out state
| of mind.
|
| Putin didn't start this invasion because he was bored.
|
| Dictators generally do things because their internal
| power base demands something, but that is rarely visible
| to us, so we don't know if a series of hardliner generals
| need this, or the base of paranoid hardline folks is
| getting angsty and he knows if he doesn't appease them he
| is in trouble.
|
| Near as I can tell, the senior leadership has already
| seen the writing on the wall re:getting frozen out of the
| west (sanctions and other stuff), and is seizing Ukraine
| for it's strategic importance to Russia - food, energy,
| year round port, buffer against a land invasion to
| Moscow.
|
| They probably see this as now or never. We don't know how
| desperate the leadership or Putin may be.
|
| Ukraine, like Poland has historically been caught in the
| middle of these kinds of things, which sucks. it also
| isn't their first time.
| mda wrote:
| Well, honestly this is another no man no problem
| situation, solution is clear..
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| You assume, that suicide and loosing are two different
| things for Putin. There is no retirement option for him
| though!
| [deleted]
| baybal2 wrote:
| He is already doing it, just ran out of ammo. Russian ammo
| stockpiles are wast, but very old, and decrepit. Some
| literally date to WW2.
|
| In first 2 days, they used pretty much everything against
| city outskirts.
|
| You think Putin is afraid losing sleep? He already tried to
| bomb the Kiyv dam multiple times, he wants to destroy the
| city plainly, and simple.
|
| https://uacrisis.org/en/the-russian-occupiers-tried-to-
| blow-...
|
| If Kiyv dam is breached, it will flood the Zaporizhna nuclear
| plant.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Where did you get this data about their ammo stockpiles?
| I'd love to believe it.
| bluGill wrote:
| Even if true pre WWII era ammo is often found by
| sportsmen and tested, it works just fine. Modern shell
| design which is over 100 years old doesn't degrade with
| time very much.
|
| New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well
| enough if you have a gun to use it in.
| belter wrote:
| https://twitter.com/RihoTerras/status/1497537193346220038
| simonh wrote:
| It's bogus, the standard rifle of the Russian forces is
| the AK-74, developed in the 1970s. Their main tank is the
| T-72 developed in the 70s but continuously developed and
| upgraded since. Most of their attack helicopters date
| from the 70s and 80s or later.
|
| That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle
| used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams
| M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces
| have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over
| the last decade and have experience from operations in
| Chechnya and Syria.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| T72 is a 60s design too
| baybal2 wrote:
| 122mm ammo - WW2 stocks still there, 7.62x54R - same,
| 82mm mortars ammo - same, earliest KPV ammo is just few
| years older.
| ByersReason wrote:
| Old tanks as no match for modern MANPADs
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I think you mean antitank rockets & missiles. MANPADs -
| Man Portable Air Defense weapons - are for use against
| helicopters.
| ByersReason wrote:
| sorry, generic misused term. In this case I meant javelin
| and the UK/Swedish equivalent. Both of which have been
| supplied to Ukraine.
| chefkoch wrote:
| Sure, the russians who have been fighting in syria since
| 2015 and who have build more than 8000 of their most modern
| tank run out of ammo in 2 days.
|
| It would be really good news, but that's totally
| unbelievable.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Saint Javelin (motto: _do a flip then hit_ ) seems to be
| every bit as effective against Russia's most modern tanks
| as she is against any other tank.
|
| > So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared
| defenses work against the Javelin? There's simply no way
| to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite
| Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its
| best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that
| relations are too frosty for the United States to
| participate in Russia's annual tank biathlon, don't count
| on that happening.
|
| Guess now we know.
| terafo wrote:
| They lost more soldiers just today than in all of the
| syrian war. And it's not about "all of russia ran out of
| ammo", it's "they overstretched their supply lines and
| can't supply enough ammo, fuel, etc, so their forces have
| just what they took with them".
| chefkoch wrote:
| It's only a four hours drive from russia to kiev, i can't
| believe one of the biggest armies in the World can Not
| find enough trucks to do this.
| openasocket wrote:
| Russian logistics are built around rail lines, as they
| are more efficient. Per Russian doctrine you are going to
| struggle to supply large numbers of forces beyond 50
| miles from a railway line. You need to understand just
| how much stuff a modern army needs. Estimates from WW2
| calculated that for every soldier in theatre they needed
| over 4 tons of material a month (that's ammo, food,
| medical supplies, replacement parts for vehicles and
| equipment, fuel, etc). And those numbers are likely
| higher in the modern era, with heavier and more powerful
| vehicles, increased usage of electronics, and munitions
| like missiles. A US armored division (on the order of 270
| tanks and a similar number of other vehicles) on the move
| would consume 500,000 gallons of fuel per day.
|
| Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since
| they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff,
| drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You
| basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting
| for logistics
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Imagine we as humanity dedicated that kind of enthusiasm,
| resources energy and logistics to climate change.
| stickfigure wrote:
| It also seems unlikely to me and I am skeptical. But
| logistics are hard under fire? Does Russia control the
| airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has
| aircraft? Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched
| missiles along the route? With cheap drones for
| reconnaissance?
|
| My impression is that the country is full of handheld
| antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That
| can't make it easy.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| While troops were deployed to Belarus for "exercises",
| there were lots of reports of them selling fuel and other
| supplies.
|
| That could have complicated logistics for the invasion.
| terafo wrote:
| Majority of Ukrainian aircraft is intact. Drones are
| being used.
|
| > _Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles
| along the route?_
|
| Yes, and civilians are doing whatever they can to stop
| them.
|
| > _My impression is that the country is full of handheld
| antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That
| can 't make it easy. _
|
| Yes. It's true, and more are coming.
| fredophile wrote:
| I'm a veteran and was did convoy security overseas as
| part of my service. I can believe it. Logistics is hard.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I am glad for fuel, and supplies embezzlement being a
| pastime hobby for Russian army officers now.
| terafo wrote:
| It is not about trucks. If you've been paying attention,
| they just went for Kyiv and didn't bother capturing
| cities or territory, which left their supply lines VERY
| vulnerable to the Ukrainian army. And they didn't think
| that the operation will be longer than a couple of days,
| so didn't bother to take many supplies with them. They
| drastically underestimated the Ukrainian army and the
| Ukrainian people's will to fight.
| chefkoch wrote:
| > And they didn't think that the operation will be longer
| than a couple of days,
|
| Why would they think that and more important why wouldn't
| they plan for a non ideal outcome.
|
| Ukraine is a huge country, bigger than iraq with more
| people, how could you be so sure?
|
| But then again my expertice comes from playing Command &
| Conquest.
| int_19h wrote:
| They expected a lot more support from the local populace,
| it seems.
| terafo wrote:
| Because their stated goal is basically to capture Kyiv
| and install their own government. They were expecting
| that everything would go like Crimean operation, but
| didn't account for the fact that Ukrainian army evolved
| since, have lots of experience fighting russia-backed
| separatists in Donbass region and is much more passionate
| about fighting than 8 years ago, when russian army
| conducted Crimean operation.
| ant6n wrote:
| Kiev is the cradle of Russia. It would be like the US
| flattening London.
| redisman wrote:
| If they flatten Kiyv.. I don't know. I would want my
| country to send in troops.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| Would you volunteer to go?
| belter wrote:
| We can see right now how much they like it...
| SergeAx wrote:
| This is extremely bad and distracting analogy.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Almost all analogies are bad and distracting, to some
| extent.
|
| Itoh, I do think it gets across, coarsely, a point about
| the sentiment scape. Russian people's tolerance of
| Ukrainian suffering can't be taken for granted. Kievans
| haven't attacked them, or given Russians much reason to
| hate them. Hate is a necessary ingredient for that kind
| of war.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _Hate is a necessary ingredient..._
|
| Not when there is control fraud. Very few Americans hate
| Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans, Palestinians,
| Vietnamese, etc.
| tshaddox wrote:
| But Russia just lightly bombing its own cradle is to be
| expected?
| bell-cot wrote:
| +10 (if I could). For those less familiar with the role of
| Kiev in Russian history:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-26 23:00 UTC)