Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

[lljadw]

The argument is not that civilians get killed in wars as throw enough ordinance around and even the most careful actions are going to result in civilian deaths, the argument is that the Russians are specifically targeting civilians.

I doubt very much that one can target civilians with drones,or even with another weapon (artillery,aircraft,...).
Unless one can given the proofs that the Kremlin ordered its forces to kill intentionally civilians ,specific civilians, the reality is that the drones used by the Russians are as precise ( better :imprecise ) as the Ukrainian and US drones and that this imprecision is the cause of civilian losses . A drone is nothing more than a missile and if you direct a missile on a target thousands of km away, surrounded by civilians,the result will be collateral damage .
And ,maybe, one should start to compare the precision of the bombs used against cities in and after WW2 and the precision of the drones . I doubt that there is a big difference between both .
The V1 and V2 ,which were used against big targets much to early,were totally imprecise .Some fell on wrong cities. The drones,used against very small targets are not much more precise .They killed persons who were not the targets .

 

[lljadw]

From ''Imprecision in Drone killing ''
In Pakistan 24 terrorists were targeted,6 were killed ,but also 868 innocent civilians ,of whom 142 children'.
In Yemen 17 terrorists were targeted ( several times ),13 were killed ,but also 260 innocent civilians .

These civilians were not killed intentionally , but died because the US drones are not precise .
Thus, one can not demand that the Russian drones should be more precise than the Western drones .

 

[lljadw]

The bottom line is; for each weapon fired and hitting civilians is not fired against military targets. Therefore, the drones, missiles, and/or artillery shells fired against civilians are not improving the Russian war effort. The reduction of the Ukrainian power grid doesn't decrease the Ukrainian armed forces ability to conduct operations against the Russians.

Btw, it is illegal to attack civilian targets (Geneva Convention IV Art 53) unless these targets also have a significance for the military. The Ukrainian power grid doesn't have a military value when it doesn't reduce the Ukrainian military. However, it has never been a war without deliberate violations of the laws of war. The laws, aka Geneva Conventions has its purpose to reduce violations and also holding participants accountable for their actions.

The bottom line is that weapons fired against'' military '' targets and hitting these will also hurt civilians .
The distinction between civilian and military targets is also very theoretical,it is invented by lawyers (civilians ) who don't know that in war everything can have a significance for the military .
Raqqa ,a Syrian city, was also a military target and almost destroyed by the US ,during their attempt to expel ISIS from the city .

 

[George]

From ''Imprecision in Drone killing ''
In Pakistan 24 terrorists were targeted,6 were killed ,but also 868 innocent civilians ,of whom 142 children'.
In Yemen 17 terrorists were targeted ( several times ),13 were killed ,but also 260 innocent civilians .

These civilians were not killed intentionally , but died because the US drones are not precise .
Thus, one can not demand that the Russian drones should be more precise than the Western drones .

Plenty of cases where the target was located in civilian populations on purpose as human shields.

 

[MontyB]

I found this rather interesting...
It is a little old but seems clearly thought out.

From Kiev to Kharkiv

 

[MontyB]

The bottom line is that weapons fired against'' military '' targets and hitting these will also hurt civilians .
The distinction between civilian and military targets is also very theoretical,it is invented by lawyers (civilians ) who don't know that in war everything can have a significance for the military .
Raqqa ,a Syrian city, was also a military target and almost destroyed by the US ,during their attempt to expel ISIS from the city .

The problem I have with your argument on this is that it seemingly ignores the type of war being fought, all of the examples you have given were from insurgencies where the enemy were dressed like and living amongst civilians which means mistakes are likely.
Further to that you describe drones as imprecise which is partially true but drone warfare is a developing science and will become more and more precise as the lessons are learnt and new weapons developed.

I would also point out that both sides are using drones and precision weapons but Ukrainian ones don't appear to be hitting civilian structures, why the difference.

 

[lljadw]

The problem I have with your argument on this is that it seemingly ignores the type of war being fought, all of the examples you have given were from insurgencies where the enemy were dressed like and living amongst civilians which means mistakes are likely.
Further to that you describe drones as imprecise which is partially true but drone warfare is a developing science and will become more and more precise as the lessons are learnt and new weapons developed.

I would also point out that both sides are using drones and precision weapons but Ukrainian ones don't appear to be hitting civilian structures, why the difference.

About drones :
Amael Kotlarski ( analist from Janes ) said the following about the Javelin missile :
''The Javelin is not a silver bullet. There is a prevailing narrative in the public mind too sort of lionizing certain weapons systems as having a deciding impact on certain conflicts ( but ) the reality is often more complex .''
He said also in Stars and Stripes: '' there are no reliable data on how many Javelins Ukraine used in battle and to what effect of .''
A Javelin in itself is not going to be able to allow the Ukrainians to defeat the entire Russian army .
About their precision:in August some 5000 Javelins had been delivered to Ukraine since the beginning of the war .If 3000 had been fired eliminating 300 Russian tanks, that would mean a hit ratio of 10 %. And I doubt that it would have been such a big number,as we do not have reliable figures of lost Russian tanks AND as most tank losses occur by non combat causes .

 

[MontyB]

About drones :
Amael Kotlarski ( analist from Janes ) said the following about the Javelin missile :
''The Javelin is not a silver bullet. There is a prevailing narrative in the public mind too sort of lionizing certain weapons systems as having a deciding impact on certain conflicts ( but ) the reality is often more complex .''
He said also in Stars and Stripes: '' there are no reliable data on how many Javelins Ukraine used in battle and to what effect of .''
A Javelin in itself is not going to be able to allow the Ukrainians to defeat the entire Russian army .
About their precision:in August some 5000 Javelins had been delivered to Ukraine since the beginning of the war .If 3000 had been fired eliminating 300 Russian tanks, that would mean a hit ratio of 10 %. And I doubt that it would have been such a big number,as we do not have reliable figures of lost Russian tanks AND as most tank losses occur by non combat causes .

Not going to argue the point as it is correct but to a large degree it is irrelevant as numbers are less important than effectiveness.
It doesn't matter how many ATGMs it takes to destroy an MBT, all that matters is that Ukraine enough of them to defeat the Russian fleet of MBTs and at this point they seem to, remember the old maxim "quantity has a quality all of its own", so if we assume Russia has 2000 MBTs and the kill ratio is 1:10 then the answer is 20000 ATGMs.

 

[BritinBritain]

The bottom line is; for each weapon fired and hitting civilians is not fired against military targets. Therefore, the drones, missiles, and/or artillery shells fired against civilians are not improving the Russian war effort. The reduction of the Ukrainian power grid doesn't decrease the Ukrainian armed forces ability to conduct operations against the Russians.

Btw, it is illegal to attack civilian targets (Geneva Convention IV Art 53) unless these targets also have a significance for the military. The Ukrainian power grid doesn't have a military value when it doesn't reduce the Ukrainian military. However, it has never been a war without deliberate violations of the laws of war. The laws, aka Geneva Conventions has its purpose to reduce violations and also holding participants accountable for their actions.

The Russians can't spell 'Geneva Convention' let alone know what it means. One only has to look at the behaviour of Soviet troops in Germany at the end of W2 as well as the murder of 22,000 Polish Officers in Katyn Forest among other war crimes they got away with.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The Russians can't spell 'Geneva Convention' let alone know what it means. One only has to look at the behaviour of Soviet troops in Germany at the end of W2 as well as the murder of 22,000 Polish Officers in Katyn Forest among other war crimes they got away with.

Thus the comments about military versus civilian targets. But there is a problem with the laws of war. In this case, can Putin be responsible for what a platoon, a company, or a battalion does on the battlefield? The commanders of each unit is responsible for what his soldiers do. It is much harder to prosecute Putin for the war crimes committed in Ukraine even though. He is responsible for the war when he gave the order to invade Ukraine, but he is calling it something else.

International law is more of suggestions, countries follow the IL when it suits them to do so.

Although, I view firing at civilians is a waste of ammunition that could be used more effective if the ammunition is fired against military targets.

The Russian government is accusing Ukraine to prepare the use of a radiological device. The Russians have used Polonium to assassinate an ex-FSB agent, so they may use similar weapons again.

 

[lljadw]

Not going to argue the point as it is correct but to a large degree it is irrelevant as numbers are less important than effectiveness.
It doesn't matter how many ATGMs it takes to destroy an MBT, all that matters is that Ukraine enough of them to defeat the Russian fleet of MBTs and at this point they seem to, remember the old maxim "quantity has a quality all of its own", so if we assume Russia has 2000 MBTs and the kill ratio is 1:10 then the answer is 20000 ATGMs.

I would say that numbers are more important than effectiveness : our media are boasting that drones are a revolutionary and deciding weapon,because they are very effective,for which there are no proofs .
Three more points :
1 it is not so that if it takes 1000 ATGMs to eliminate 100 MBTs,you will eliminate 1000 MBTs if you use 10000 ATGMs .
2 it is also not so that the effects of the elimination of 50 % of Russian tanks will be twice important as the effects of the elimination of 25 % of Russian tanks . The importance of tanks is much overestimated .The Russians failed in March,losing ''few '' tanks;if they now lose a big number of tanks does that mean that they will collaps ?
About the ATGMs : the problem is not only to have a sufficient number of ATW, but also to have the needed trained men who can use these weapons .The instructions for these weapons are in English, but,how many Ukrainians understand English ?
3 The biggest cause of tank losses are non combat losses, not ATW :when the allies were advancing to Germany in September 1944 ,against a very feeble German opposition, the result was still a considerable loss of tanks .Engines were out, problems of spare parts, accidents, ....but these losses did not stop the allied advance .
To summarize
1 the effectiveness of the drones is unproved
2 the number of Russian tank losses is unknown
3 the importance of tank losses is overestimated
4 the importance of the tanks in this war is also exaggerated .

 

[lljadw]

Plenty of cases where the target was located in civilian populations on purpose as human shields.

But there are also plenty of cases where Ukrainian military installations were located in zones with a big civilian population : if I remember correctly,last month the Russians destroyed a big store in Kiew resulting in a big number of civilian deaths,because they targeted a Ukrainian military installation that was very close to the store . The same happened in Coventry where a lot of civilians died during attacks from the LW on the Rolls Royce plants located in the center of the city .

 

[lljadw]

I would also point out that both sides are using drones and precision weapons but Ukrainian ones don't appear to be hitting civilian structures, why the difference.

I don't think that this is a good comparison .
In May-June 1940 the advancing Germans hit civilian structures because they advanced, the Wallies OTOH were more careful,because the civilians they could hit were their own ones, not Germans .
When the Ukrainians are targeting Russian military structures in occupied Ukraine,they kill only few Ukrainian civilians,because there are few Ukrainian civilians in the vicinity of these installations , but there are a lot of Ukrainian civilians in the vicinity of Ukrainian military installations .And ,as in 1940 with the Wallies , the Ukrainians are more careful not to hit their own civilians .
A good comparison would be the number of Ukrainian civilians killed by Russian drones against the number of Russian civilians killed by Ukrainian drones, but as the last one is not happening .......

 

[MontyB]

I don't think that this is a good comparison .
In May-June 1940 the advancing Germans hit civilian structures because they advanced, the Wallies OTOH were more careful,because the civilians they could hit were their own ones, not Germans .
When the Ukrainians are targeting Russian military structures in occupied Ukraine,they kill only few Ukrainian civilians,because there are few Ukrainian civilians in the vicinity of these installations , but there are a lot of Ukrainian civilians in the vicinity of Ukrainian military installations .And ,as in 1940 with the Wallies , the Ukrainians are more careful not to hit their own civilians .
A good comparison would be the number of Ukrainian civilians killed by Russian drones against the number of Russian civilians killed by Ukrainian drones, but as the last one is not happening .......

The problem is that this isn't 1940 and for the better part of the last 60 years of warfare there has been a conscious effort certainly in the west to minimize civilian casualties, I don't doubt that if we compared this Russian campaign to the campaigns of Ghenghis Khan the Russians would look like saints but it isn't a valid way to compare methods as this is a different world to even that of the 1940s.

 

[MontyB]

I would say that numbers are more important than effectiveness : our media are boasting that drones are a revolutionary and deciding weapon,because they are very effective,for which there are no proofs .
Three more points :
1 it is not so that if it takes 1000 ATGMs to eliminate 100 MBTs,you will eliminate 1000 MBTs if you use 10000 ATGMs .
2 it is also not so that the effects of the elimination of 50 % of Russian tanks will be twice important as the effects of the elimination of 25 % of Russian tanks . The importance of tanks is much overestimated .The Russians failed in March,losing ''few '' tanks;if they now lose a big number of tanks does that mean that they will collaps ?
About the ATGMs : the problem is not only to have a sufficient number of ATW, but also to have the needed trained men who can use these weapons .The instructions for these weapons are in English, but,how many Ukrainians understand English ?
3 The biggest cause of tank losses are non combat losses, not ATW :when the allies were advancing to Germany in September 1944 ,against a very feeble German opposition, the result was still a considerable loss of tanks .Engines were out, problems of spare parts, accidents, ....but these losses did not stop the allied advance .
To summarize
1 the effectiveness of the drones is unproved
2 the number of Russian tank losses is unknown
3 the importance of tank losses is overestimated
4 the importance of the tanks in this war is also exaggerated .

1. Is a point we disagree on as I believe their value has veen proven, are they the greatest thing since sliced bread no but they do have a value.
2. I don't agree with that either while we don't know the exact numbers we do know fairly accurate numbers, in the grand scheme of things claiming 1000 tanks destroyed or captured is good enough as it really doesn't matter whether the actual number is 977 or 1023.
3. Not necessarily as tanks have a value beyond being a lump of metal with a gun poking out the front and seeing your vastly overhyped equipment going up in smoke or failing to work also has a flow on affect.
4. Agreed to an extent.

 

[lljadw]

1. Is a point we disagree on as I believe their value has veen proven, are they the greatest thing since sliced bread no but they do have a value.
2. I don't agree with that either while we don't know the exact numbers we do know fairly accurate numbers, in the grand scheme of things claiming 1000 tanks destroyed or captured is good enough as it really doesn't matter whether the actual number is 977 or 1023.
3. Not necessarily as tanks have a value beyond being a lump of metal with a gun poking out the front and seeing your vastly overhyped equipment going up in smoke or failing to work also has a flow on affect.
4. Agreed to an extent.

About point 3 :if the importance of tanks is overestimated ( not only in Ukraine, but also in WW2 ) ,the conclusion is that the importance of tank losses is also exaggerated .
Example : Russian tank unit ( 50 tanks and 500 men ) without the protection from infantry and artillery.On the other side Ukrainian infantry unit of 500 men with artillery but without the protection of tanks . Which one is the strongest ?
And if the tank unity looses in case A 5 tanks or in case B 10 tanks ,will he be weaker in case B ?
The importance of tank losses is not a question of math ;what is used ? the % of tanks that are lost or the raw number ?
A loss of 5 tanks can be more important than a loss of 10 tanks .

 

[lljadw]

An other point : civilian losses in classic wars or in civilian wars .
The following figures are from ''Frontiers ''Estimating the Number of Civilian Casualties in Modern Armed Conflicts ''
A summary ( with rounded numbers )
Two traditional wars
Korea : 579000 military casualties and 1668000 civilian deaths civilian death rate : 74 %
First Gulf War (1990-1991 ) :20000/26000 military deaths and 140000/260000 civilian deaths death rate : 87 %
Vietnam ( combination of classic and traditional war )military 726000 ,civilians 627000 death rate :48 %
Iraq 2003-2019 : military 90000/100000 civilians 180000/ 200000 rate 66 %
Afghanistan :military 113000,civilians 43000 rate : 28%
Conclusion : classic wars do not have a lower rate than civilian wars .

 

[MontyB]

An other point : civilian losses in classic wars or in civilian wars .
The following figures are from ''Frontiers ''Estimating the Number of Civilian Casualties in Modern Armed Conflicts ''
A summary ( with rounded numbers )
Two traditional wars
Korea : 579000 military casualties and 1668000 civilian deaths civilian death rate : 74 %
First Gulf War (1990-1991 ) :20000/26000 military deaths and 140000/260000 civilian deaths death rate : 87 %
Vietnam ( combination of classic and traditional war )military 726000 ,civilians 627000 death rate :48 %
Iraq 2003-2019 : military 90000/100000 civilians 180000/ 200000 rate 66 %
Afghanistan :military 113000,civilians 43000 rate : 28%
Conclusion : classic wars do not have a lower rate than civilian wars .

Again your facts are correct but your conclusions aren't in my opinion, when I made my comment I deliberately left Korea and early Vietnam out of the mix because they were fought in a manner not dissimilar to WW2 and let's be fair no one up until the early 1960s really cared who or how many they killed, the only thing that kept civilian casualties low was the poor quality of the weaponry being used.
Since the mid 1960s wars have become televised and politicized as a result and civilian populations don't like seeing woman, children and old people being killed for whatever ludicrous reason someone has invented to justify war.

The general consensus these days is that you try and avoid noncombatant casualties as best you can and ask any one who served in Iraq or Afghanistan about the hoops they had to jump through to drop a bomb by contrast when the targets you are hitting are shopping malls and playgrounds it is pretty obvious you don't care who you hit.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Drones aren't that new. The Israelis used drones during Operation Peace for Galilee, they are cheaper than regular airplanes. There are small drones used by the artillery to guide indirect fire and for infantry platoons for surveillance up to drones with a global reach.

The Ukrainian war has showed us what we knew in theory, but now we can see it in reality. How effective modern artillery is. Now it doesn't waste shells, instead it hits what you want it to hit.

 

[lljadw]

Again your facts are correct but your conclusions aren't in my opinion, when I made my comment I deliberately left Korea and early Vietnam out of the mix because they were fought in a manner not dissimilar to WW2 and let's be fair no one up until the early 1960s really cared who or how many they killed, the only thing that kept civilian casualties low was the poor quality of the weaponry being used.
Since the mid 1960s wars have become televised and politicized as a result and civilian populations don't like seeing woman, children and old people being killed for whatever ludicrous reason someone has invented to justify war.

The general consensus these days is that you try and avoid noncombatant casualties as best you can and ask any one who served in Iraq or Afghanistan about the hoops they had to jump through to drop a bomb by contrast when the targets you are hitting are shopping malls and playgrounds it is pretty obvious you don't care who you hit.

I would say that the general consensus these days in the west is to hide as much as possible non combatant casualties,because it would otherwise give the woke media the opportunity to whine about enemy non combatant casualties ( I am still convinced that the western public does not care much when women and children die in a war ).
The opponents of the west do not care about civilian losses ,because they are more realistic and because the value of a human body is much less than in the West .
About our media : when women and children die because of attacks of the army of Assad, there is a lot of whining, but when ISIS kills women and children ,our media are silent .