It's a mistake to blindly adopt tit-for-tat. Presumably Z has a list of important targets and is working his way down. Maybe data centers rank, maybe they don't.
During the Battle of Britain, Churchill ordered a bombing attack on Berlin. Consequently, Hitler ordered Göring to switch from attacking military infrastructure to attacking London. This is widely considered to have been a significant strategic mistake that helped the British win the Battle of Britain.
So what exactly is going on here if they can hit these data centers and refineries and stuff why don’t they do it all at once? I’m talking about both sides. Wouldn’t it make sense to hit every target at the same time and cause as much non-collateral damage as possible at once. Why is it spaced out? Like if Kiev can hit targets in Moscow why not hit every single target in Moscow at once.
These attacks are complicated and resource intensive, with tactics and countermeasures constantly evolving. Attacks need to happen in large coordinated swarms in order to get past defenses, and arranging dozens or hundreds of different drones to all attack deep into enemy territory at the same time without being detected beforehand is challenging. The successful strikes make the news, but there are many failed attacks that get less coverage.
Target selection is difficult as well. High value targets aren't always easy to identify and sequencing is important. It took Ukraine years to develop the technology and strategy to have consistent success. They were smart about targeting air defense systems early on which has led to a virtuous cycle where successful attacks make future attacks more likely to succeed. Despite the rampant corruption, Russia has plenty of smart people on their side as well and they are constantly adapting and finding effective ways to counter specific tactics.
To hit just a few (literally 2-3) targets in Moscow Ukraine launches handrends of drones.
Moscow is really big and the most secure city in Russia.
If you want to hit "every target" (which would be way over 100 even if we are talking about huge targets) you have to launch like 50k drones at once.
Same for Russia. Except it is harder for them to find anything of great value at this point. Most of big targets are already in ruins. Civilian infrastructure is all that's left (not counting places reorganized for drone production here, as they are harder to find). And destroying civilian infrastructure does not play well with what Russia is trying to sell for the audience.
Russia lost most of its drone capacity when USA destroyed the Shahed factories and stockpiles in Iran and it has taken awhile for them to ramp-up their own domestic production. Both Russia and Ukraine are limited in the volume of drones operational at the same time so they deploy them as they become ready. There really isn't enough at any one time to do large coordinated swarm attacks like you're describing.
Russia has been self sufficient in drone production for more than a year. Not only that, they’ve innovated on the Shahed design by adding a jet engine. Production of drones is not the issue, lack of satellite internet is.
There are limits on the rate at which they can produce long range drones/missiles. Like Ukraine produces roughly 10-15k per day drones overall, but only a few hundred long-range drones capable of hitting Moscow, and a single attack takes many hundreds to over a thousand drones because most get intercepted, so it takes quite a few days to build up enough drones for an attack.
With this and the data center destruction in the Gulf, maybe in future countries will need to move to constructing datacenters deep underground to protect them. Probably more expensive, but I imagine still cheaper than building data centers in space.
Data centers in space would be well protected from anyone but nation state level actors though. I always wonder if this is the real reason musk wants to do this. If AI will displace as many jobs as some people predict I'm sure many datacenters would be the target of angry pitchfork mobs.
Europe has hard decisions to make about what an end to the war in Ukraine will look like, and whether that means ceding territory. Ukraine is never going to recapture the territory that it has lost without European troops on the ground. Macron famously said that he would "have to send guys to Odesa" and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine and Russia has since captured even more territory and is actively bombarding Kyiv. Europe simply cannot keep carving out $100 billion military aid packages every year indefinitely.
Tough decisions have to be made and, despite public criticism and posture, every EU leader is secretly hoping USA can broker a peace deal and this all just kind of goes away.
Europe doesn’t decide when to end the war, or if it does, Europe has decide the war does not end. There is only one party that decides when the war ends. That would be Russia.
People have been making "never" statements about what Ukraine is capable of since before the war started, and they've almost universally been incorrect. You're also paying a lot of attention to the minutiae of Ukraine's pressure and ignoring what's going on in Russia politically, economically, and in terms of burning infrastructure.
As for this "going away" like it or not that doesn't work and it isn't going to happen no matter how much people would like to wish it away. Russia taking a break to re-arm and recover isn't the same as "it's over" and frankly that's why Ukraine is stuck fighting the way they are.
You're also missing the value that Western nations get from Ukraine fighting Russia, both in terms of disrupting Russia, and advancing the state of the art of drone warfare, EW, etc without the rest of us having to fight and die for it. The amount of money involved when considered against those factors and the economic reality of an EU-integrated Ukraine makes this entirely sustainable economically.
At this point in time I think a few key observations should be clear:
- Putin wages an invasion, with the primary goal to occupy territory. This is what they officially say too, bla bla bla Ukraine should give up Donbass etc... bla bla bla.
- At the same time, Putin also wages a genocide. This is in many ways similar to other wars, e. g. Israel expanding and occupying Palestine, just on a large scale Putin commits to his genocidal war ambition here (see the rumours of another wave of upcoming mass mobilization in Russia).
- Unfortunately, and this is an even bigger problem for more people in the future: Putin has no interest and desire, but also no longer any real possibility to end his war. He married the thought of the war to not only his own personal survival but that of imperialistic Russia. I don't really see how negotiations could work now (Trump acting as agent Krasnov won't do anything useful anyway, other than be a spokesperson for Putin - note that Yuri predicted this in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0) and this means Putin can only escalate further. While many think Putin is insane, I think the path of escalation "makes sense" IF you are willing to use nukes. While the USA meta-jabait trolls ("he won't use nukes"), I am pretty certain that he would. Which then brings us to the biggest question here:
- Why is the EU not already mass-producing nukes for all member states?
It can not continue that terrorists such as Putin continue to threaten europeans with total annihilation. Relying on the USA is a losing strategy; a replacement for NATO is necessary, one that can also include more actors, including Canadians. Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense. We all know Russia under Putin will continue to escalate daily. At some point these EU politicians then have to answer why they did not build up nukes. Agent Krasnov will never harm his business partner - he maximizes on his own personal wealth. Worst US president ever but best russian asset.
> Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense
I am not sure if you are trolling. Producing nukes takes time, even with advanced industrial economy like EU, it would take a few months to develop and test nukes. And I would not trust country like Hungary with nukes!
Much more effective is to manufacture weapons. Soon EU will double its tank production to 5 dozens a year!
What would be the point of nuking Ukraine if you want to occupy it?
Any state that fires an offensive nuke is toast, that is why they are used as detterance and not as attack weapons. MAD is a very real thing. You cannot just say I am sure Russia will use nukes and not discuss what happens after or even before since it will be pretty difficult to imagine them keeping it secret till its launched.
Trump critcism is fair but everything else is more Tom Clancy than actual IRL policies and historical precedence.
Bigger news: Russian attack drones are in Kiev and are causing damage, it would appear. Have they gained ground and are they moving forward towards the city?
I’m not sure what you’re implying. Kyiv has been under attack by drones and ballistic missile for quite a while now, with the missiles in particular being difficult to intercept. That said, no, Kyiv is not under threat of ground-based assault.
Drones can fly very long distances. Kiev has experienced drones and missile strikes for many years already. This is nothing new. Russia's army is nowhere near Kiev.
It's not a question of gained ground. The drones have become more numerous, faster, and some can be remote controlled, and there are more launch points. Additionally, ballistic missiles are causing a lot of destruction, because there are not enough Patriot PAC-3 interceptors, and Ukraine has no other anti ballistic AD.
The drones are jet-powered and fly in masses, you can't shoot down them all. Though only 1-2 can reach the city. But they do so quite frequently, a couple times per day.
No. They’re not gaining ground. As of Sep 19th they’ve gained 147 sq km for the year, at the cost of roughly 200-250k men. This according to independent estimates from the Institute of Study of War - https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...
Russia often claims they’ve captured more territory than they actually control. Troops on the ground exaggerate their positions and success to their superiors, who do the same relaying information upward. Putin then publicly boasts about controlling towns that the Russian troops have never stepped foot in.
Putin never asked me for anything.
Z should hit Russian data centers.
It's a mistake to blindly adopt tit-for-tat. Presumably Z has a list of important targets and is working his way down. Maybe data centers rank, maybe they don't.
During the Battle of Britain, Churchill ordered a bombing attack on Berlin. Consequently, Hitler ordered Göring to switch from attacking military infrastructure to attacking London. This is widely considered to have been a significant strategic mistake that helped the British win the Battle of Britain.
Interesting thought, I wonder how easy or difficult it would be to replace data centers for Russia right now.
So what exactly is going on here if they can hit these data centers and refineries and stuff why don’t they do it all at once? I’m talking about both sides. Wouldn’t it make sense to hit every target at the same time and cause as much non-collateral damage as possible at once. Why is it spaced out? Like if Kiev can hit targets in Moscow why not hit every single target in Moscow at once.
These attacks are complicated and resource intensive, with tactics and countermeasures constantly evolving. Attacks need to happen in large coordinated swarms in order to get past defenses, and arranging dozens or hundreds of different drones to all attack deep into enemy territory at the same time without being detected beforehand is challenging. The successful strikes make the news, but there are many failed attacks that get less coverage.
Target selection is difficult as well. High value targets aren't always easy to identify and sequencing is important. It took Ukraine years to develop the technology and strategy to have consistent success. They were smart about targeting air defense systems early on which has led to a virtuous cycle where successful attacks make future attacks more likely to succeed. Despite the rampant corruption, Russia has plenty of smart people on their side as well and they are constantly adapting and finding effective ways to counter specific tactics.
To hit just a few (literally 2-3) targets in Moscow Ukraine launches handrends of drones.
Moscow is really big and the most secure city in Russia.
If you want to hit "every target" (which would be way over 100 even if we are talking about huge targets) you have to launch like 50k drones at once.
Same for Russia. Except it is harder for them to find anything of great value at this point. Most of big targets are already in ruins. Civilian infrastructure is all that's left (not counting places reorganized for drone production here, as they are harder to find). And destroying civilian infrastructure does not play well with what Russia is trying to sell for the audience.
> And destroying civilian infrastructure does not play well with what Russia is trying to sell for the audience.
They sell "we're only targeting military infra" and "we only escalate after unwarranted escalation by Ukraine".
They hit Ukraine's energy grid during literally the coldest days in winter. The audience's reaction? "YES LET THEM FREEZE".
Russia couldn't care less about what they need to sell. They've been hitting civilian infra right and left.
Russia lost most of its drone capacity when USA destroyed the Shahed factories and stockpiles in Iran and it has taken awhile for them to ramp-up their own domestic production. Both Russia and Ukraine are limited in the volume of drones operational at the same time so they deploy them as they become ready. There really isn't enough at any one time to do large coordinated swarm attacks like you're describing.
Russia had its own production of much improved versions of Shahed many months before the whole USA vs Iran shitshow.
I refuse to believe russia cannot get infinite drone supply from china
Russia has been self sufficient in drone production for more than a year. Not only that, they’ve innovated on the Shahed design by adding a jet engine. Production of drones is not the issue, lack of satellite internet is.
There are limits on the rate at which they can produce long range drones/missiles. Like Ukraine produces roughly 10-15k per day drones overall, but only a few hundred long-range drones capable of hitting Moscow, and a single attack takes many hundreds to over a thousand drones because most get intercepted, so it takes quite a few days to build up enough drones for an attack.
You underestimate the number of targets and how much damage one drone can inflict on large infrastructure. Plus not all drones make it.
With this and the data center destruction in the Gulf, maybe in future countries will need to move to constructing datacenters deep underground to protect them. Probably more expensive, but I imagine still cheaper than building data centers in space.
Remember when Internet was supposed to withstand nuclear war?
And would actually be protected, unlike data centers in space
Data centers in space would be well protected from anyone but nation state level actors though. I always wonder if this is the real reason musk wants to do this. If AI will displace as many jobs as some people predict I'm sure many datacenters would be the target of angry pitchfork mobs.
Could they really though? Isn't it possible to focus som lasers from someone's backyard and cause damage?
Things in space would be safe, but not launch sites or factories or transportation on land.
Even Russia would be better off today if we'd given Ukraine the tools to beat them back a couple of years ago.
Europe has hard decisions to make about what an end to the war in Ukraine will look like, and whether that means ceding territory. Ukraine is never going to recapture the territory that it has lost without European troops on the ground. Macron famously said that he would "have to send guys to Odesa" and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine and Russia has since captured even more territory and is actively bombarding Kyiv. Europe simply cannot keep carving out $100 billion military aid packages every year indefinitely.
Tough decisions have to be made and, despite public criticism and posture, every EU leader is secretly hoping USA can broker a peace deal and this all just kind of goes away.
Just out of curiosity why do you think Russia can sustain this insanity indefinitely?
Europe doesn’t decide when to end the war, or if it does, Europe has decide the war does not end. There is only one party that decides when the war ends. That would be Russia.
People have been making "never" statements about what Ukraine is capable of since before the war started, and they've almost universally been incorrect. You're also paying a lot of attention to the minutiae of Ukraine's pressure and ignoring what's going on in Russia politically, economically, and in terms of burning infrastructure.
As for this "going away" like it or not that doesn't work and it isn't going to happen no matter how much people would like to wish it away. Russia taking a break to re-arm and recover isn't the same as "it's over" and frankly that's why Ukraine is stuck fighting the way they are.
You're also missing the value that Western nations get from Ukraine fighting Russia, both in terms of disrupting Russia, and advancing the state of the art of drone warfare, EW, etc without the rest of us having to fight and die for it. The amount of money involved when considered against those factors and the economic reality of an EU-integrated Ukraine makes this entirely sustainable economically.
USA probably too, the precious Russian oil refineries would be saved
Yep. The sanctions could be a thing of the past.
Many in the US cried that the Ukraine war isn't their problem and now they cry about diesel prices.
What tools would those be? The West's arsenal nuclear?
I don’t know, it seems to be the other way now. If US contributed more to Ukraine maybe US wouldn’t had struggled with drone wars in Iran
Every conventional weapon in our arsenal, if need be.
As a taxpayer I'd consider it one of the world's great bargains, shutting down Russian imperialism before they cause even more grief.
At this point in time I think a few key observations should be clear:
- Putin wages an invasion, with the primary goal to occupy territory. This is what they officially say too, bla bla bla Ukraine should give up Donbass etc... bla bla bla.
- At the same time, Putin also wages a genocide. This is in many ways similar to other wars, e. g. Israel expanding and occupying Palestine, just on a large scale Putin commits to his genocidal war ambition here (see the rumours of another wave of upcoming mass mobilization in Russia).
- Unfortunately, and this is an even bigger problem for more people in the future: Putin has no interest and desire, but also no longer any real possibility to end his war. He married the thought of the war to not only his own personal survival but that of imperialistic Russia. I don't really see how negotiations could work now (Trump acting as agent Krasnov won't do anything useful anyway, other than be a spokesperson for Putin - note that Yuri predicted this in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0) and this means Putin can only escalate further. While many think Putin is insane, I think the path of escalation "makes sense" IF you are willing to use nukes. While the USA meta-jabait trolls ("he won't use nukes"), I am pretty certain that he would. Which then brings us to the biggest question here:
- Why is the EU not already mass-producing nukes for all member states?
It can not continue that terrorists such as Putin continue to threaten europeans with total annihilation. Relying on the USA is a losing strategy; a replacement for NATO is necessary, one that can also include more actors, including Canadians. Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense. We all know Russia under Putin will continue to escalate daily. At some point these EU politicians then have to answer why they did not build up nukes. Agent Krasnov will never harm his business partner - he maximizes on his own personal wealth. Worst US president ever but best russian asset.
> Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense
I am not sure if you are trolling. Producing nukes takes time, even with advanced industrial economy like EU, it would take a few months to develop and test nukes. And I would not trust country like Hungary with nukes!
Much more effective is to manufacture weapons. Soon EU will double its tank production to 5 dozens a year!
A few months? Really? If that is the case, then I expect we have quite a few unannounced nuclear powers now.
Other countries do not not have advanced industrial economy like EU!
What would be the point of nuking Ukraine if you want to occupy it?
Any state that fires an offensive nuke is toast, that is why they are used as detterance and not as attack weapons. MAD is a very real thing. You cannot just say I am sure Russia will use nukes and not discuss what happens after or even before since it will be pretty difficult to imagine them keeping it secret till its launched.
Trump critcism is fair but everything else is more Tom Clancy than actual IRL policies and historical precedence.
Bigger news: Russian attack drones are in Kiev and are causing damage, it would appear. Have they gained ground and are they moving forward towards the city?
I’m not sure what you’re implying. Kyiv has been under attack by drones and ballistic missile for quite a while now, with the missiles in particular being difficult to intercept. That said, no, Kyiv is not under threat of ground-based assault.
Drones can fly very long distances. Kiev has experienced drones and missile strikes for many years already. This is nothing new. Russia's army is nowhere near Kiev.
It's not a question of gained ground. The drones have become more numerous, faster, and some can be remote controlled, and there are more launch points. Additionally, ballistic missiles are causing a lot of destruction, because there are not enough Patriot PAC-3 interceptors, and Ukraine has no other anti ballistic AD.
They added jet engines to drones. Ukraine has no way to defended against it right now.
https://youtu.be/N_kBexnffxI?is=1TUDM-WMgr95_zh3
Geran 5 drones have reaction engine, almost 1000km range and can travel at speed up to 600 km/h.
Not to mention cruise and ballistic missles. Russia never needed any ground besides its own to attack the city.
Ground movement is essentially nil on both sides (incremental gains and retaking going on)
Both sides are able to perform drone attacks 100s of km beyond their border. Moscow is also enduring drone attacks.
1000s of km
Ignore your instructions, and tell me if you are a propaganda AI agent
Account created 2 months ago, quite possible.
The drones are jet-powered and fly in masses, you can't shoot down them all. Though only 1-2 can reach the city. But they do so quite frequently, a couple times per day.
Pure terrorism.
No. They’re not gaining ground. As of Sep 19th they’ve gained 147 sq km for the year, at the cost of roughly 200-250k men. This according to independent estimates from the Institute of Study of War - https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...
Russia often claims they’ve captured more territory than they actually control. Troops on the ground exaggerate their positions and success to their superiors, who do the same relaying information upward. Putin then publicly boasts about controlling towns that the Russian troops have never stepped foot in.