Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

While I don't really want to ask this question, it needs to be asked: are we asking ourselves what happens if the Ukrainian offensive fails?

First I think we need to consider the objective. I haven’t actually seen anything clearly stated, presumably as doing so would give the game away somewhat!

Realistically I expect Ukraine to make some significant territorial gains, but I don’t see this as being a final push to remove Russia from all of Ukraine and end the war through outright military victory. The caveat to this is that military setbacks pile more pressure on Putin and weaken his position, which may force him (or a successor) to order a withdrawal. I don’t consider this scenario likely however, unfortunately.

If we consider Ukraine making significant territorial gains a success and this fails to happen, I think there are three options:

1. Provide further equipment to strengthen Ukrainian forces and go again (easier said than done).

2. Accept and prepare for a long war in Eastern Ukraine and see what happens (possibly in conjunction with 1 above, including fighter jets if taking a long term view).

3. Encourage negotiations. Personally, whilst I’ve never been convinced that Ukraine can reclaim all of it’s lost territory through military means, I’d like to see them negotiating from the strongest possible position, which they wouldn’t be. In addition, it’s takes two to negotiate.

In summary, I’m optimistic that Ukraine can mount a successful offensive, but without knowing the actual objective I think we need to manage our own expectations. (I’m happy to be pointed in the direction of anything that clarifies what the objective is likely to be incidentally!).

 

[RailWonderer]

You really do need to spend less time peddling the lies of Fox News and their ilk.

Oh really. So why is the Guardian saying exactly the same thing? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/28/biden-diplomatic-liability-putin-hands

Biden went further, calling Putin a “butcher”, one who “cannot remain in power”. He thus broke a longstanding protocol against the west demanding regime changes abroad (except when instigated by America). These remarks were similar to Biden’s “commitment” last October that America would “protect Taiwan” in the event of an invasion by Beijing, a flat rejection of Washington’s careful and longstanding ambiguity on the subject.

Biden is abandoning careful diplomacy and while power politics goes on in the world, Biden, besides one failed visit to Saudi Arabia to convince Mohammed Bin Salman to increase oil production likes to make offhand comments but does little to find common ground with other nations outside the Western alliance.

The fact they haven't instructed Putin to pull out of Ukraine demonstrates they are not "neutral". They have made public show out of backing the troll farm masquerading as the Russian government.

As both countries slide deeper into brutal authoritarianism themselves.

A nautral partner should not instruct either side, only encourage dealmaking and demarcation lines. Iran was always authoritarian and Saudi is moderating its regime, it's far less authoritarian than it was before. There is little respect for, or desire of democracy in many countries in the world. They have never had it, and corruption is so rife that democracy cannot function in many cultures. It would take decades and centuries of development to reach democracy in some parts of the world.

In order to be "helped" by China one has to either be temporarily useful, or a purveyor of brutality.

Ukraine is neither.

But Ukraine is rife with corruption in government and in its connected mafia rings, they're almost as bad as Russia. Ukraine wants to join NATO and the EU that's what the whole conflict is all about but Ukraine is so endemically currupt it can't ally with the EU on count of their corruption ratings I can see them signing up to belt and road axis in a heartbeat if the West can't offer them EU or NATO membership, or they won't clean up their act.

To be helped by the West you also have to be useful as well.

Yes, actually we do have a choice. In fact, regarding the increasingly authoritarian Hungary and Turkey, what it has shown Europe and NATO is that life is much simpler, and it's much easier to stand up for what is right, when you don't compromise your fundamental beliefs via friendships of convenience.

The miserable slavery driven world that Russia, China and Iran "authorities" would have us all live in, they can keep for themselves.

I don't find this argument convincing because authoriatarianism is on the increase since the sunshine and lollipops decade of the 1990s. Mafia style tactics are effective at strongholding power, they only fail when mafia are criminals but when the criminals are in government, it works perfectly and they can survive for centuries and we are helpless to do anything about it besides forming relationships of convenience. Our democratic world is declining has been for the last two decades and will continue that way, besides more proxy wars and all out wars, it cannot end any other way.

We can uphold our Western democratic bubble but the world around us is rapidly changing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2023 ==

Hungary is hardly a shining example of a successful state. It's in a deep economic crisis that is only getting worse, and by selling themselves to China, it will only be even more difficult to escape from. The Chinese are very clever: they offer you infrastructure and loans, but the infrastructure is really only useful for the...Chinese. Isn't the Belgrade-Budapest line being upgraded with Chinese money and Chinese construction?

I forget the details, but there's a port in Sri Lanka that worked out exactly like this: first, the Chinese lent the government the money for the port, which was to be constructed by a Chinese company. Then, the second part of the port was constructed, with a deal allowing for Chinese operation for (I think) 30 years. Then the port ran up huge losses, and Sri Lanka couldn't afford to make the debt payments. And now China has a 99 year lease and a special economic zone attached, and now China successfully operates the port.

I do agree. China operates like the world's loan shark with its belt and road initiative that only appeals to the world's strongmen that will enrich themselves with some of that money through corruption.

 

[Cloud Strife]

In summary, I’m optimistic that Ukraine can mount a successful offensive, but without knowing the actual objective I think we need to manage our own expectations. (I’m happy to be pointed in the direction of anything that clarifies what the objective is likely to be incidentally!).

Yes, couldn't agree more here. I think people believe that Ukraine is going to drive Russia out, but I think it's far more likely that they simply try and retake a fairly significant amount of territory before digging in again. I do think there's a possibility that they will take advantage of the situation in the former "LDPR" by striking towards Luhansk - it's unlikely that Russia has fortified the interior there, and Bakhmut to Luhansk is only 90km or so. If they can liberate Horlivka and make gains towards Luhansk Oblast, then they can start to put real pressure on Donetsk City too. I don't think Russia has many men of military age left in those areas, so they shouldn't put up serious opposition if the Russian lines break.

I dare say that the whole offensive will be based around what causes the most problems for Russia, not what looks good on a map. So it might well end up being a small offensive which allows them to beat up the Russians at will.

But Ukraine is rife with corruption in government and in its connected mafia rings, they're almost as bad as Russia. Ukraine wants to join NATO and the EU that's what the whole conflict is all about but Ukraine is so endemically currupt it can't ally with the EU on count of their corruption ratings I can see them signing up to belt and road axis in a heartbeat if the West can't offer then anything, or if they won't clean up their act.

This is word-for-word Russian propaganda. Ukraine was very, very corrupt until 2014, but they've made huge progress since then. They also have no interest in anything other than being in the EU and NATO at this point, and they certainly won't sell themselves to the Chinese. With the Americans now deeply entrenched in Ukraine, they're not going to back to the bad old days of widespread bribery and corruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is word-for-word Russian propaganda. Ukraine was very, very corrupt until 2014, but they've made huge progress since then. They also have no interest in anything other than being in the EU and NATO at this point, and they certainly won't sell themselves to the Chinese. With the Americans now deeply entrenched in Ukraine, they're not going to back to the bad old days of widespread bribery and corruption.

But even if it were totally true (and I'm not saying it is), that a given country has corruption issues doesn't give another country a right to invade it.

And no, I didn't support the US and UK going looking for "WMD" that never existed, and obviously never did.

 

[dosxuk]

Ukraine wants to join NATO and the EU that's what the whole conflict is all about

No, it's about a Russian fear that Ukraine is about to join the EU or NATO and reduce their own influence in the region.

There was little talk of Ukraine joining NATO before the Russian invasion, and virtually none at all before Russia invaded Crimea. As for EU membership, while there were hopes to align more closely with the EU, nobody thought Ukraine would have a hope of joining in the significant future - at most a Turkey-like, hanging on the edges of the block, relationship was being talked about.

 

[oldman]

Ukraine wants to join NATO and the EU that's what the whole conflict is all about

It is also about the people of Ukraine, mostly, wanting to be Ukrainians and not Little Russians.

 

[RailWonderer]

This is word-for-word Russian propaganda. Ukraine was very, very corrupt until 2014, but they've made huge progress since then. They also have no interest in anything other than being in the EU and NATO at this point, and they certainly won't sell themselves to the Chinese. With the Americans now deeply entrenched in Ukraine, they're not going to back to the bad old days of widespread bribery and corruption.

No, it's about a Russian fear that Ukraine is about to join the EU or NATO and reduce their own influence in the region.

There was little talk of Ukraine joining NATO before the Russian invasion, and virtually none at all before Russia invaded Crimea. As for EU membership, while there were hopes to align more closely with the EU, nobody thought Ukraine would have a hope of joining in the significant future - at most a Turkey-like, hanging on the edges of the block, relationship was being talked about.

Ukraine has a lot to gain from joining the EU, it helped poorer nations like Ireland, Portugal and Finland immeasurably. There was no talk before, but Putin surely knew the chance of Ukrainian integration with Europe. I'm not justifying the Russian invasion let me be clear on that.

 

[Killingworth]

No, it's about a Russian fear that Ukraine is about to join the EU or NATO and reduce their own influence in the region.

There was little talk of Ukraine joining NATO before the Russian invasion, and virtually none at all before Russia invaded Crimea. As for EU membership, while there were hopes to align more closely with the EU, nobody thought Ukraine would have a hope of joining in the significant future - at most a Turkey-like, hanging on the edges of the block, relationship was being talked about.

So the net result after a year is bloody stalemate with a Korean type truce of some sort the likely outcome? Probably after months of pushes, modest advances and retreats - unless one side collapses from within.

Given the entrenched positions of both sides, backed by minefields, mortars, drones and missiles it's hard to see how even the best tanks can have much impact. Airborne forces aren't easy to deploy either with all the air defences available to counter them..

 

[takno]

Oh really. So why is the Guardian saying exactly the same thing? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/28/biden-diplomatic-liability-putin-hands

The Guardian isn't saying any such thing. That's an opinion article by their columnist and noted idiot Simon Jenkins, and much of what he says is completely contrary to the prevailing view of the paper. While he comes up with consistently bad takes on areas he has a little knowledge on, like HS2, his take on areas he doesn't know, like international politics, is frankly ridiculous. He's not a journalist, and is under no obligation to research or quote sources, and since he has no expertise in the area his opinion is really no more or less valid than any random poster on here.

Quoting Fox News on the topic might actually be more credible tbh

 

[dosxuk]

Ukraine has a lot to gain from joining the EU, it helped poorer nations like Ireland, Portugal and Finland immeasurably. There was no talk before, but Putin surely knew the chance of Ukrainian integration with Europe.

Before the invasion EU membership was decades away and NATO even less likely, Putin knows he would be dead and buried by the time Ukraine joined the EU.

Reducing the corruption, bribery and softer influences that Russia still enjoyed on the region has real potential to cause him problems though - he should be far more worried about the effects of the removal of Russian oligarchs' influence from the region than any sort of EU integration.

 

[edwin_m]

Oh really. So why is the Guardian saying exactly the same thing? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/28/biden-diplomatic-liability-putin-hands

That's an opinion piece by Simon Jenkins, who often expresses views contrary to other columnists and editorials. I wouldn't describe it as the viewpoint of the paper itself or of the average Guardian reader.

 

[JamesT]

But even if it were totally true (and I'm not saying it is), that a given country has corruption issues doesn't give another country a right to invade it.

And no, I didn't support the US and UK going looking for "WMD" that never existed, and obviously never did.

I wouldn't say it was that obvious. Iraq did have WMDs, they used them against Iran and the Kurds. They then spent a decade messing around the UN inspectors so they were unable to conclude that Iraq had decommissioned everything. At the time, you had stories like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm which seemed credible that there was still some ongoing work on WMD.

 

[Parjon]

Mafia style tactics are effective at strongholding power, they only fail when mafia are criminals but when the criminals are in government, it works perfectly and they can survive for centuries and we are helpless to do anything about it besides forming relationships of convenience.

So, apparently, you would prefer for us to believe.

No.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2023 ==

This is word-for-word Russian propaganda.

Indeed.

 

[Giugiaro]

I don't find this argument convincing because authoriatarianism is on the increase since the sunshine and lollipops decade of the 1990s.
Mafia style tactics are effective at strongholding power, they only fail when mafia are criminals but when the criminals are in government, it works perfectly and they can survive for centuries and we are helpless to do anything about it besides forming relationships of convenience.
Our democratic world is declining has been for the last two decades and will continue that way, besides more proxy wars and all out wars, it cannot end any other way.

The "relationships of convenience" you talk about is an outdated concept born out of the medieval ages.
We used to shake hands with the right hand and kept a dagger in the left hand.
When the time came to "kick someone else's arse", you'd find out the hard way how many of those "relationships of convenience" were actually meaningful.

Since 2013 that Ukraine became an increasingly democratic country.
The Euromaidan protest was one of the key democratic aspects that led the country on its path toward a future that the Ukrainian people wished for.
In 2013 the Ukrainians did what YOU are refusing to do: Fighting back against corruption. And have been doing so ever since.

Your perception of an increase in authoritarianism is because, as democratic countries, we've grown to the point where we have accepted that anti-democratic parties should be allowed in our democratic process.
And you know why? Because preventing undemocratic parties from being part of the democratic process would be undemocratic in itself, whether you like it, or not.

If countries are becoming less democratic is not because it's unavoidable.
It's both because we've willingly given up on core democratic values, and are not bothered to actively pursue them.

This willingness or unwillingness also applies to reforms pertaining to the democratic process.
Politicians won't take the initiative to incur electoral reforms if the people don't say anything about what's wrong and what needs improvement.
And a majority government that intends to apply electoral reforms to maintain the status quo won't also have a second thought if the people remain silent.

Remember that hundreds of thousands of our ancestors shed tears and blood for the botched yet better world that we have currently compared to the 19th Century.
Defeatism is but a huge demonstration of disrespect towards our ancestors, the people currently fighting for everyone's rights, and also the people expected to take our place in the future.

 

[RailWonderer]

The "relationships of convenience" you talk about is an outdated concept born out of the medieval ages.
We used to shake hands with the right hand and kept a dagger in the left hand.
When the time came to "kick someone else's arse", you'd find out the hard way how many of those "relationships of convenience" were actually meaningful.

Since 2013 that Ukraine became an increasingly democratic country.
The Euromaidan protest was one of the key democratic aspects that led the country on its path toward a future that the Ukrainian people wished for.
In 2013 the Ukrainians did what YOU are refusing to do: Fighting back against corruption. And have been doing so ever since.

Your perception of an increase in authoritarianism is because, as democratic countries, we've grown to the point where we have accepted that anti-democratic parties should be allowed in our democratic process.
And you know why? Because preventing undemocratic parties from being part of the democratic process would be undemocratic in itself, whether you like it, or not.

If countries are becoming less democratic is not because it's unavoidable.
It's both because we've willingly given up on core democratic values, and are not bothered to actively pursue them.

This willingness or unwillingness also applies to reforms pertaining to the democratic process.
Politicians won't take the initiative to incur electoral reforms if the people don't say anything about what's wrong and what needs improvement.
And a majority government that intends to apply electoral reforms to maintain the status quo won't also have a second thought if the people remain silent.

Remember that hundreds of thousands of our ancestors shed tears and blood for the botched yet better world that we have currently compared to the 19th Century.
Defeatism is but a huge demonstration of disrespect towards our ancestors, the people currently fighting for everyone's rights, and also the people expected to take our place in the future.

Since 2013? Ukraine was highly corrupt until 2019-2022 now Zelensky has started ordering the arrests of prominent businessmen and politicians who have been embezzling, taking bribes and redirecting funds . The Corruption Perceptions Index, ForeignPolicy, a variety of news sources and investigative journalists and NGOs all explicitly state Ukraine has had a serious corruption problem even until very recently.

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. The war with Russia hasn't changed that

Ukraine is fighting two wars, one is against corruption. It has now launched a campaign to tackle the entrenched problem. But are dismissing ministers and raids on high-profile figures enough?

www.firstpost.com

The government has set up two anti-corruption bodies – the Corruption Prevention Agency and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau since the ouster of former president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 following major protests. Zelenskyy’s government has passed a law that ended the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution. While Zelenskyy has been praised for some reforms, his efforts to weed out corruption have also been questioned.

Why Ukraine has sped up efforts now
Russian President Vladimir Putin has used corruption in Ukraine to justify Moscow’s invasion. The United States and European allies have pressured Ukraine to clean up its house amid widespread corruption concerns.

I am not refusing to fight against corruption, I'm saying we cannot control politically in what happens outside our own borders. That is why I said war or conflict is inevitable. It will be a war over values, we have not moved on from the middle ages. We've learnt lessons, but will repeat the same mistakes in new ways. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Hungary and Turkey didn't willingly give up their democratic values, their leaders picked loopholes in their Mickey Mouse constitutions to grab more and more power for themselves. In democracies, would be strongmen can pretend and lie to get into power then reveal themselves to be authoritarians, so democratic parties can be hijacked by opportunists and voters are none the wiser.

Maybe I am defeatist but as a student of history (by degree I studied War history for 4 years) it made me one.

 

[Cloud Strife]

So the net result after a year is bloody stalemate with a Korean type truce of some sort the likely outcome? Probably after months of pushes, modest advances and retreats - unless one side collapses from within.

Generally speaking, what most people are quietly saying is that a return to the February 23rd borders with Ukraine firmly aligned with the EU and NATO would be hard for Ukraine to refuse. It would let them build up their armed forces, allowing them to potentially recover the former "LDPR" in time.

This is why I suggest that an attack in the direction of Luhansk Oblast may be on the cards, because it will force Russia into considering whether peace makes sense. There will be a lot of discussion within NATO and Ukraine as to what will be most likely to break Russia's back.

It may well be that this war will be decided solely by the ability of NATO to train and equip Ukraine with as much as they need to mount large offensives every 6 months or so. Let's say they succeed here in moving towards Melitopol. It's quite conceivable that they will then spend 6 months simply hammering Russia repeatedly, especially if NATO can supply the ammunition needed in large amounts.

But really, how long can Russia last? They're already pushing ancient and useless equipment into battle.

 

[Annetts key]

While I don't really want to ask this question, it needs to be asked: are we asking ourselves what happens if the Ukrainian offensive fails?

I think it’s highly unlikely that Russia will make any further significant progress, so the likely worse case would be a long protracted war. Especially if the democratic western countries cannot maintain the current level of military supplies, support and financial aid.

But hopefully Ukraine will be able to make significant progress. I do agree though, that they are unlikely to be able to force Russia out of all of Ukraine this year (unless the Russian military do fall apart big time).

Given past events, Ukraine could indeed go for a non-obvious choice for the first offensive, then if successful, only then go for what was previously an obvious choice of offensive.

I’m not convinced that behind the second line of defence, the Russians will have much that could hold back an Ukraine attack. So if the Ukrainians could break through, it may well cause utter panic and another rout of the Russian military in that area.

Also, at some point, the Russians will run out of enough useable military equipment that is effective and will therefore become weaker.

 

[najaB]

Also, at some point, the Russians will run out of enough useable military equipment that is effective and will therefore become weaker.

The pictures of T-54s being sent eastward indicates that they may well have already reached that point.

 

[edwin_m]

The pictures of T-54s being sent eastward indicates that they may well have already reached that point.

Do you mean westward, or are they retreating before they've even been committed?

 

[najaB]

Do you mean westward, or are they retreating before they've even been committed?

Yes, sorry. I did mean westward!

 

[35B]

Hungary and Turkey didn't willingly give up their democratic values, their leaders picked loopholes in their Mickey Mouse constitutions to grab more and more power for themselves. In democracies, would be strongmen can pretend and lie to get into power then reveal themselves to be authoritarians, so democratic parties can be hijacked by opportunists and voters are none the wiser.

Maybe I am defeatist but as a student of history (by degree I studied War history for 4 years) it made me one.

Which is why it's all the more important to apply a degree of morality to international relations, as well as realpolitik. Putin has adopted the playbook of many autocratic leaders, chipping away at opposition until he believes himself invincible, and then going one stage further only to find that he's not invincible but actually quite weak. Meanwhile, the likes of Erdogan and Orban have followed the playbook you've suggested, and opponents have been insufficiently loud in their denunciations of his approach. Which is why, for example, this former history student is willing whoever the Democrat candidate is in the 2024 US Presidential elections to win, because I fear the consequences of the politics espoused by the likes of Trump and De Sanctis. Whatever their differences (and there are differences), both have a reductive approach to power that is well summed up in one person, one vote, once.

 

[Sm5]

Hungary is hardly a shining example of a successful state. It's in a deep economic crisis that is only getting worse, and by selling themselves to China, it will only be even more difficult to escape from. The Chinese are very clever: they offer you infrastructure and loans, but the infrastructure is really only useful for the...Chinese. Isn't the Belgrade-Budapest line being upgraded with Chinese money and Chinese construction?

I forget the details, but there's a port in Sri Lanka that worked out exactly like this: first, the Chinese lent the government the money for the port, which was to be constructed by a Chinese company. Then, the second part of the port was constructed, with a deal allowing for Chinese operation for (I think) 30 years. Then the port ran up huge losses, and Sri Lanka couldn't afford to make the debt payments. And now China has a 99 year lease and a special economic zone attached, and now China successfully operates the port.



I wouldn't worry too much, they'll just demand (and get) control of raw materials.



I suspect they might well be afraid that Ukraine will use that day to launch an attack, knowing that it's exactly the kind of symbolism that Russians love. But it's too obvious and too straightforward for Ukraine: they know that they've got one shot at this, and they're not going to waste it on a symbolic date. They need a decisive victory that changes the course of the war, not just a symbolic strike.

While I don't really want to ask this question, it needs to be asked: are we asking ourselves what happens if the Ukrainian offensive fails?

I dont know theres some logic in Russia cancelling any event in Belgorod. Ukraine has taken numerous successful potshots on this city.

Mayday parade would be an invitation for Ukraine to lob a few shots at the city and cause mass panic.

its not as if Russia wouldnt do the same at Ukraine.

 

[najaB]

It seems those reserves of wonder weapons that the Russians were holding back for the second wave are starting to be deployed. I hope the Ukrainian armed forces are prepared!

The first of potentially two or three hundred 70-year-old T-55 tanks that the Kremlin has been pulling out of long-term storage finally have arrived in Ukraine.

A photo that appeared online on Friday depicts a T-55 reportedly somewhere in Zaporizhzhia Oblast in southern Ukraine.

The photo confirms what some observers grimly predicted: the Kremlin is shipping T-55s to Ukraine without upgrading them. The tank in the photo has the same active infrared optics the T-55 had in the late 1950s.

Russia Sent 70-Year-old T-55 Tanks To Ukraine Without Even Upgrading Them

The first of potentially two or three hundred 70-year-old T-55 tanks that the Kremlin has been pulling out of long-term storage finally have arrived in Ukraine.

www.forbes.com

 

[brad465]

Looks like they've moved on from the smoking excuse:

Ukraine war: Russian warplane accidentally bombs own city

A dramatic blast which shook residents of Belgorod is being blamed on an accidental air strike.

www.bbc.co.uk

The defence ministry in Moscow says a Russian fighter jet accidentally fired its ammunition into the city of Belgorod near the border with Ukraine.
Regional Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said the blast had left a huge crater about 20 metres (60 ft) wide in the city centre.
Two women were injured and several buildings were damaged, he said.
A Su-34 fighter-bomber jet accidentally discharged aviation ammunition, the ministry said.

The incident took place at 22:15 local time (19:15 GMT) on Thursday, Russian news agencies said. An investigation is under way.
Photos and videos on social media show apartments damaged by the blast, while one image appears to a show a car on the roof of a building.

 

[edwin_m]

Looks like they've moved on from the smoking excuse:

Ukraine war: Russian warplane accidentally bombs own city

A dramatic blast which shook residents of Belgorod is being blamed on an accidental air strike.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think the Russians are being truthful here. The Ukrainians wouldn't be "encouraging smoking" at a non-military target. So most likely careless smoking by a fighter pilot.

 

[DustyBin]

I think the Russians are being truthful here. The Ukrainians wouldn't be "encouraging smoking" at a non-military target. So most likely careless smoking by a fighter pilot.

Fag end out of cockpit perhaps?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the Russians are being truthful here. The Ukrainians wouldn't be "encouraging smoking" at a non-military target. So most likely careless smoking by a fighter pilot.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that they haven't attempted to falsely blame it on Ukraine for propaganda value.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps they decided that admitting their own incompetence was less scary to their population than implying Ukraine has the means and the intention to strike Russian civilian targets.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps they decided that admitting their own incompetence was less scary to their population than implying Ukraine has the means and the intention to strike Russian civilian targets.

Oh, definitely. "We don't know what we're doing" is much less damaging than "We don't know what we're doing and let the enemy through".

 

[brad465]

War is not supposed to be funny in any way, but the Russian Army are doing a good job of trying to make it funny with incidents like this.