Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Solmyr]

During his China visit Putin himself said (I know, I know) that taking Kharkiv is not the plan. That sounds like he was informed that it's not going to succeed.

[Josquius]

During his China visit Putin himself said (I know, I know) that taking Kharkiv is not the plan. That sounds like he was informed that it's not going to succeed.

From all I've read the Russians have been making it clear internally for a while that the plan is to get in artillery range of Kharkiv and destroy it.
At the start of the war they expected Kharkiv to be strongly pro Russian and easily secured. That it isn't hurts their pride. The thing fascists fret about most of all.

[Tamas]

Based on what I have read and (gasp:)heard, either the objective was a proper summer offensive to take Kharkiv and its region, in which case it is a sluggish start at best, or that to create a buffer zone to reduce Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure. In case of the latter this would be evidence, in my view, that the hits on refineries are really hurting.

[Sheilbh]

How much, if any, of that $60 billion aid package was air defense missiles?

Fair and that is necessary - but would it have helped. Looking at the data they have there the big shift has been a large increase in Russia firing S-300/S-400 missiles, which the article describes as:

Russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. It often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down.

Elsewhere in the article the Ukrainian spokesperson basically says Russia has so many of those missiles that Ukraine can't try to shoot them all down. I'm not sure based on the description and the way they're being used, as described there, if they could even shoot them all down assuming Ukraine had lots of Patriots.

If anything, it sounds to me like Russia's military adapting because of the relative success of Ukrainian defence to using a missile that isn't really designed for that, has a shorter range but which there are more of and which (because they have a shorter range) can be more difficult to shoot down. I think that's part of what's happening now is actually that it's Russia changing the way they're fighting the war in response to Ukraine - which will force changes and possibly different requirements from Ukraine.

I see no evidence that reporters at the NYTimes don't understand what tactically significant results means.  His claim that there is a lack of knowledge is based, he says, on one conversation he says he had with one reporter.

Please start reading newspapers with actual reporting standards and ethics.

This nonsense that actual news reporting and reporters are inaccurate or don't understand is a claim that requires more evidence than this.  But the fact that you and others so readily accept it as true shows how effective disinformation campaigns to discredit actual news sources has been.

Newspapers and reporters with all of that can be wrong (but still useful) depending on their sources and what it is they're reporting.

I think there's been a few points of quite big disconnects between reporting in the NYT and Washington Post and elsewhere on Ukraine. But I think that reflects that to an extent what they are reporting is the interpretation from within the US military and intelligence community (and sometimes the administration) - which is really important and interesting but isn't necessarily the same as what's actually happening - and the reality is that's impossible to report so it is always going to be based on different sources with different biases, or levels of information, or analysis.

[grumbler]

I see no evidence that reporters at the NYTimes don't understand what tactically significant results means.  His claim that there is a lack of knowledge is based, he says, on one conversation he says he had with one reporter.

Who is claiming that "reporters at the NYTimes don't understand what tactically significant results means."  Puck-Nielsen does not mention the NYT.   Is this another strawman?  Also, the demonstration of a particular case of lack of knowledge is sufficient to prove at least some level of a lack of knowledge. 

Please start reading newspapers with actual reporting standards and ethics.

Please start paying attention to knowledgeable commentators and SMEs instead of relying only on newspaper reports.

This nonsense that actual news reporting and reporters are inaccurate or don't understand is a claim that requires more evidence than this.  But the fact that you and others so readily accept it as true shows how effective disinformation campaigns to discredit actual news sources has been.

No one is claiming that there are no reporters with knowledge and reports that are accurate.  Stop with the strawman arguments.  Contrarianism is not a good look.

[grumbler]

Fair and that is necessary - but would it have helped. Looking at the data they have there the big shift has been a large increase in Russia firing S-300/S-400 missiles, which the article describes as:

Russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. It often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down.

Elsewhere in the article the Ukrainian spokesperson basically says Russia has so many of those missiles that Ukraine can't try to shoot them all down. I'm not sure based on the description and the way they're being used, as described there, if they could even shoot them all down assuming Ukraine had lots of Patriots.

If anything, it sounds to me like Russia's military adapting because of the relative success of Ukrainian defence to using a missile that isn't really designed for that, has a shorter range but which there are more of and which (because they have a shorter range) can be more difficult to shoot down. I think that's part of what's happening now is actually that it's Russia changing the way they're fighting the war in response to Ukraine - which will force changes and possibly different requirements from Ukraine.

Those missiles have warheads only in the 150-200 kilo range.  While residual fuel will add to the damage, such tiny strikes are not going to be very effective except for moral purposes (on both sides).