Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Sheilbh]

One of ugly realities of bombing campaigns is that there is a political purpose of retribution; of demonstrating to one's own domestic population that pain is being caused to the adversary. Vergeltungswaffen. At the most benign is something like the Doolittle raid, a stunt of no strategic purpose other than propaganda effect. But mostly this rationale leads to very ugly campaigns because viciousness becomes an end in itself.  One of the reasons even pro-Israel voices have expressed some uneasiness is the concern that Israel's campaign has veered into this rationale. 

With Russia in Ukraine, I think it is more straightforward, these attacks where the "revenge" motive is paramount, although with the twist that the "wrong" being requited is entirely invented. To what extent the justification is truly resonating with the Russian people is hard to say.  But there appears to be no other rational military purpose other than the sense that the armed forces should be doing something other than getting dozens of tanks and hundreds of men blown up to advance a few yards.

Or to take it further and make it even more futile/pointless in this case - that it is activity to prove activity is happening?

There aren't images of tanks rolling across Ukraine. It's not in any respect a "heroic" fight. It's a meat grinder for Russian forces where not much changes not very often. The bombing might not just be about still inflicting pain but almost just a cynical, evil busywork. I can't help but think of Baudrillard too (and obviously this is a very real war) but the bombing perhaps almost being a performance of war for domestic consumption.

As I understand it the argument has never been that the allies should never have used strategic bombing.  Clearly the attacks on factories were effective.

Interesting - that was my assumption to be honest. The "narrative" I'd taken was basically that it was pointless - it didn't really do anything that impacted on the course of the war. I think that was broadly the common-ish understanding but I could be wrong. And I am very much not an expert though.

There is no question that strategic bombing was intended to minimize allied combatant casualties. To what extent it succeeded in doing so is the question.  Certainly, the casualty rates among allied bombing crews were horrific for most of the war.  Did it help save the lives of GIs and Tommies on the ground? In Europe, the Germans were not defeated until the last allied boot occupied the last piece of German land. The western allies did not so much succeed in substituting stategic airpower for the lives of their infantry as in substituting the lives of Soviet soldiers and greater Soviet influence over postwar Europe for the lives of their own soldiers.  In Japan meanwhile, the horribly destructive firebombings did not coerce surrender, although atomic weapons did.

Yeah. Although this is the sort of calculation I think is more forgivable. It seems understandable in the context of the time that this would be a way of avoiding allied casualties and would serve a military purpose.

The moral side of it inevitably - and in some cases quite deliberately - involving mass civilian casualties was, I think clear then as now, which is demonstrated by the contemporary comments against it and immediate moving on.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW there has been some extensive study of German industrial output in the final years--one big thing is they started to adopt more modern factory management practices, which can make a huge difference in productivity. It is very jarring to learn about how German factories were being ran in 1941 and 1942--during the war itself, they were being ran much more like a collection of "small shops" than a true modern factory.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes Germany did not mobilize their industry properly until the end of 1942. It's incredible to reflect on the fact that UK aircraft production alone in 1941 was nearly double that of Germany.  By mid-44, however, depleting manpower was become a more meaningful constraint on German combat power than production. 

[dane]

Philips Payson O'Brien argues in "How the War Was Won, Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II" that allied bombing campaigns, in conjunction with naval blockades, were in fact devastating to the German and Japanese war economies as well as their strategic mobility. In his view, the bombing allied bombing campaigns were undertaken because they were able to cause significant damage with relatively little loss of allied life - a priority in democracies.

He argues that the early bombing missions caused significant damage, but had limited effectiveness because they couldn't be sustained due to lack of fighter cover. Losses were too high for sustained bombing and the Germans were able to repair whatever damage was caused before a follow-up mission could be launched.

Late in the war two things changed. First, adequate fighter cover was provided allowing sustained campaigns. Second, targeting priorities changed, focusing more on industrial inputs, especially coal and mobility, especially railroads. Factories that had been painstakingly dispersed in response to earlier bombing weren't able to work full time due to lack of coal and other industrial inputs. Industrial output wasn't consistently able to reach the front lines and reserves couldn't be moved without risk of destruction. He quotes German and Japanese sources saying that around half and 1/10th of industrial output (respectively) ever reached combat units.

Further, the eastern front was denuded of air support in order to defend against the western allies' bombing campaign, allowing the Red Army to advance much more rapidly than before.

I thought his book was an insightful reassessment of the air war and very convincing, but I'm far from an expert. I'm curious if any of the World War II scholars here have had the opportunity to read it and what they think of it.

 

... so apparently I already asked who you were two years ago, but I forgot.

Good points, though

Thanks for the warm welcomes. See you in two years   

[Sheilbh]

[Josquius]

Apparently lots of chatter on Russian social media that putins new year address was a deep fake (I heard it 3rd hand. Can any of our Russian speakers confirm?).
Lots of weird artefacts and his tie glitching with his skin.
Which opens a whole range of questions about 4D chess.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

at some point we'll discover that all of Russia is a deepfake and that it were the lizardpeople all along... 

[Tamas]

This Russian YouTuber I follow said earlier the only real proof of Putin being alive or dead will be after he wins the election - if he keeps the usual people appointed then yes he is alive, if there is going to be a big reshuffle then he has been dead and replaced by the winning oligarchs with one of the doublea. Oh, Russian politics.

I think the most likely explanation is that he was too ill to record it in X number of takes so extensive editing was necessary

[Josquius]

This Russian YouTuber I follow said earlier the only real proof of Putin being alive or dead will be after he wins the election - if he keeps the usual people appointed then yes he is alive, if there is going to be a big reshuffle then he has been dead and replaced by the winning oligarchs with one of the doublea. Oh, Russian politics.

I think the most likely explanation is that he was too ill to record it in X number of takes so extensive editing was necessary

I wouldn't believe the Putin is dead extreme conspiracy talk. Though editing a lot to cover up him being ill with multiple takes or something visibly wrong with him somewhere....sure.

I also can't help but think where the 4D chess is going is they purposefully edited an otherwise perfectly acceptable video to look weird and glitchy so when the time comes they do want to fully fake something they have more leeway and and a defence of "You guys said that even about Putin's perfectly fine video".

[Tamas]

I also can't help but think where the 4D chess is going is they purposefully edited an otherwise perfectly acceptable video to look weird and glitchy so when the time comes they do want to fully fake something they have more leeway and and a defence of "You guys said that even about Putin's perfectly fine video".

Nah, no way. Putin looking strong is the one thing keeping his regime afloat.

[HVC]

Only explanation is that AI has taken over Russia. Skynet has nukes

[Josquius]

Only explanation is that AI has taken over Russia. Skynet has nukes

Its the HOI1 AI isn't it.

[Zoupa]

When millenials go to war lol

[Barrister]

When millenials go to war lol

You'd prefer they go with memes like "Kilroy was here"?

You fight with the soldiers you have...

[Zoupa]

Oh I'm not complaining, I love it. Btw that's probably in reference to them hitting Sebastopol today, apparently Gerasimov was in town.