Russia is firebombing Ukraine.

[RandySF]

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=jVXiIZXjpQymZDICmld3ag

Julia Ioffe

@juliaioffe
Electricity and water are going out all over Ukraine, the the result of massive Russian air strikes all over the country. The commander behind it is the man who flattened Aleppo and gassed Ghouta.

[SheltieLover]

1. Does Ukraine not have the capacity to obliterate Moscow?

[blue-wave]

4. No they don't

They need long range missiles to hit Moscow. I hope they get them now.

[SheltieLover]

5. Heartbreaking

Wtf are the billions we've been sending for?

[Irish_Dem]

21. The $billions have stopped Putin from winning the war, so far.

But he may be successful in the end.

[Happy Hoosier]

41. I doubt it...

This was a “show of force” by Russia, but it’s not one they can maintain and they know it. And it doesn’t really affect his battlefield capabilities. It could only be successful if it pressured Ukraine into concessions. Unless Russia was able to maintain this kind of optempo, I doubt that will be successful.

[Martin Eden]

13. If Ukraine bombs Moscow, Putin will use tactical nukes

Escalation thereafter will be more horrific than anything we've seen so far.

[Irish_Dem]

20. Yes Putin's threats will let him annihilate Ukraine and become the dominate force in Europe.

[Martin Eden]

27. No. It will be a disaster for everyone.

Russia does not have the power to become the dominant force in Europe, which depends on economic power.

However, his nuclear arsenal gives him the power to wreak enormous destruction.

[PortTack]

33. Correct..to be a dominant power one has to have economic power and military power.

They have neither. Yes, lots of nukes…the crazy man in N Korea has lots of nukes…doesn’t make the country a super power..far from it.

[Polybius]

45. I don't think Kim has "lots of nukes"

Ok, I just looked it up. Roughly 45, so way more than I thought. I was gonna say like 6 small ones, yikes!

[Duppers]

8. Not w/o Western help...

And as such, would escalate into a nuclear attack on western countries in all likelihood.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yes the West is so afraid of Putin, we will stand by and watch Ukraine be destroyed.

Putin will keep fighting until every Ukrainian is dead.

Threatening nukes is the winning strategy.

[Duppers]

24. I'd like to think so too.

But ...

"Putin warned the West he was not bluffing when he said he'd be ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia. Some analysts say Putin is bluffing but Washington is taking Putin seriously."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-will-russia-use-nuclear-weapons-putins-warnings-explained-2022-10-04/



Putin doesn't value any life but his own, his girlfriend's, and families'.

[Irish_Dem]

25. Putin can do whatever he wants and he knows it.

The west won't stop him.

[Emrys]

42. There's a fine line sometimes between realism and defeatism.

From your various replies, I get the impression you're in the latter camp.

It looks very much like the Ukrainians aren't.

And today's bombings will only bolster Ukraine's allies' resolve, and probably speed up the delivery of advanced air defences and other promised support (Germany delivered more air defence hardware only today - better late than never).

Cast your mind back to February and at various points in the summer. Many pundits were only too quick to write off Ukraine's chances.

Their claims didn't age well.

[Happy Hoosier]

43. Western strategy is working, though...

Putin’s kleptocracy has gutted the Russian military, which has always been an antiquated hulk anyway. He’s down to third rate equipment and soldiers. Their morale is terrible, their training is worse. They cannot effectively execute offensive operations, except is very isolated circumstances. This is in sharp contrast to the UKR forces, which are demonstrating the ability to execute modern coordinated combined arms operations. So as as the West maintains support for Ukraine, I think they will continue to enjoy success.

[Emrys]

44. Today's bombings demonstrate Putin's weakness.

He doesn't have a stock of precision munitions, so he's reduced to ill-aimed saturation attacks on civilian populations, under the guise of aiming for strategic infrastructure targets (which he's largely missed even when his missiles have not been intercepted by the Ukrainians - about 50% got through at last count), partly because he has to be seen to be doing something, but there's relatively little militarily he can do effectively, for some of the reasons you've pointed out.

Part of his desperation is that severe cracks are appearing in the Russian Federation. Or, to be more accurate, cracks that were already there are becoming more obvious to the point where he won't be able to ignore them much longer. There's also the fact that his own leadership position is on a very shoogly peg.

If it's a bet about which collapses first, my money would be on the Russian Federation rather than any Western/European alliance. And I'd be willing to bet pretty big.

[Happy Hoosier]

48. Well said! NT

[Just A Box Of Rain]

37. That's wildy inaccurate.

Joe Biden and our allies have provided UKR forces with the weapons that they need to defeat putin's forces in Ukraine.

At the same time we have been mindful not to provide things like long-range missiles that could hit Moscow, as escalating this into a nuclear conflict is in no one's interest.

There is a nuanced line between the extremes, and Biden is walking it perfectly.

Suggesting the West "will stand by and watch Ukraine be destroyed" is utterly false and runs counter to the reality of the situation.

[TheProle]

47. Who is standing by and watching Ukraine being destroyed?

Most of the world is coughing up money and arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

[Irish_Dem]

17. For some reason that crosses a line with the west and NATO?

And they would stop funding Ukraine I think.

[DFW]

22. Even if they do, they wouldn't make use of it

The Ukrainians aren't out to obliterate or colonize Moscow or the Russians. Their objectives aren't a mirror image of Putin's.

Putin wants his Ukrainian SSR back in the neo-Soviet fold. The Ukrainians want to stay out of it.
Putin is basically indicating that if he can't have his way, there will be no Ukraine left.
The Ukrainians are saying, please just go home, and leave us alone.
That sounds like "irreconcilable differences" to me, and Putin will not go home unless forced to. His celebrated Red Army may have great balalaika players, singers and dancers, but have proven themselves less than formidable in actual combat. This is not something a major world power can afford to have be known worldwide. He shows himself to be a failure if he uses nuclear weapons on a neighboring country that has none, themselves, and never attacked Russia of their own accord.

[Gore1FL]

23. The Ukrainian forces are more focused on strategic attacks to free Ukraine

Bombing inside Russia may provide an emotional victory, but it wouldn't really advance their liberation efforts.

[grantcart]

39. They used to. After the end of the SU Ukraine was 3rd largest nuclear power.

They voluntarily gave them up in exchange for assurances that everyone would respect their borders.

Russia, a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, obviously has violated it. We are keeping our word but are not providing long range artillery.

Ukraine has stated that if they got long range artillery they would allow the US control over targeting.

[Botany]

2. It is time to step up and get Ukraine the best fighter jets in the world, the best anti aircraft ...

.... missiles in the world, and real time information on any Russian aircraft from the moment those
planes lift off the ground in Russia. If it flies it dies. And Ukraine should be able to attack any
missile base inside Russia that launches attacks on that country. Putin has lost the land war and
all of his troops will be run out of the country, killed, and or have surrendered to Ukrainian forces
very soon so the only thing Putin has left is to attack civilians from outside of the country via planes
or missiles.

BTW none of this shit would be happening now if we had stopped Putin from installing Trump in 2016.

[Irish_Dem]

18. Way past time.

Putin's threats have worked to keep the west from from fully supplying Ukraine.

We are watching Ukraine being slaughtered.

[plost99]

3. ATACMS

US needs to provide ATACMS today!!

[BeyondGeography]

6. +1

[blue-wave]

7. Yes, with fighter jets too

and the best anti-missile equipment.

[Duppers]

9. Yes. ✔️

[Ligyron]

16. It would be a game changer.

Be able to target any missile base in Russia targeting civilians.

Finish off that bridge from Russia to Crimea putting a real dent in their ability to move arms and men into the fight.

Worried about Putin using tactical battlefield nukes? Wouldn't it be funny if Ukraine discovered some nukes in storage they forgot about? No nuclear armed country has ever attacked another one and with good reason.

Slava Ukraini!

[msongs]

10. so we gonna nuke moscow based on one tweet from unconfirmed sources? nuts .

[Justice matters.]

12. Yep. 1 cruise missile in the middle of Red Square. eom

[RandySF]

14. I don't see anything in my post about nuking Moscow.

And tweet is from an American journalist.

[Justice matters.]

11. Was the bridge bombing a false-flag operation?

To justify that massive retaliation on Ukrainian civilians?

[Mister Ed]

15. I doubt it because...

...a Russian false-flag operation would have focused on killing innocent Russian civilians rather than partially destroying a badly-needed artery of supply for the Russian military.

[DFW]

26. This is a modern day version of Hitler's "Revenge Rockets"

In rage and frustration at not being able to bring Britain to its knees, Hitler started sending terror missiles to bomb the civilian population of Britain during World War II. These missiles were Vergeltung-1 and Vergeltung-2, V-1 and V-2 for short. Vergeltung means "revenge" in German.

I wonder if Putin is secretly calling his rockets M-1 and M-2 (M for "месть," or "myest' " meaning revenge). Or, maybe P-1 and P-2 for "Ракета мести," "rakyeta myesti" or "Rocket of revenge?"

I'd remind Putin of Miguel de Unamuno's speech to the Spanish Fascists in 1936, except I don't think Putin will even be told "vencerán" in this case. Unamuno told the fascists: "Ustedes vencerán, pourque poseen la fuerza bruta, pero no convencerán." "You will conquer, because you posses brute force, but you will not persuade." In the case of the Spanish fascists, Unamuno was right: they did conquer (and they did not persuade). In Putin's case, the west has NOT stood idly by (as they did with the Spanish Republic), and Putin has not conquered, despite his brute force. The fact that he is even talking about the use of nukes is proof enough that he has not persuaded, and nor will he.

Someone who is convinced of the righteousness of his cause does not need to threaten to use nuclear weapons to get people to agree with his point of view.

[lindysalsagal]

28. On WAPO, too"

Putin boasts of ‘massive strike’ across Ukraine; Kyiv calls for new weapons from allies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/10/russia-ukraine-war-latest-updates/

[Javaman]

29. we are walking a knife blade from this expanding into a much wider war. nt

[roamer65]

35. Yes, World War 3.

[Kaleva]

30. During WWII, mass bombing often achieved the opposite of intended resilts

It strengthened the resolve of civilians rather then decrease it.

[48656c6c6f20]

31. It's too hard

We won't help because it's too hard. That's the motto of our current nation. It's too hard

[lindysalsagal]

32. Standard jealous ex-husband response: If he can't have her, he kills her

And he's supposed to be considered the "leader" of this country he's bombing. He's supposed to say with a straight face that those border towns "voted for him" because they "want him" as their leader.

And don't be surprised when we finally find out just how much damage tfg did to our country and our friends because "He couldn't have" the presidency.

And still his voting magat fools believe he's on their side. Monsters are only on their own side. Any reasonable grown up knows that.

[lpbk2713]

34. Look for more as the weather turns sub-zero.

Civilians will suffer more than they have already.

[WarGamer]

36. Someone told me they were out of aircraft, bombs, missiles and troops...

[Kaleva]

38. I haven't heard that. Except for being low on troops

Which is why they are calling up over 300, 000 conscripts. They certainly are running low on tanks and IFVs as they are pulling out early models out of storage.

[lpbk2713]

40. Here come some fresh troops now!

[sl8]

46. The source doesn't seem to mention "firebombing".

Are they using incendiaries?

A Google search didn't turn up anything about recent firebombing.

[Emrys]

49. Yeah, horrible as today's bombings have been, they're not firebombing.

Last edited Mon Oct 10, 2022, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

In firebombing, the resulting conflagrations take on a life of their own and rage on afterwards in a chain reaction. These were discrete, and relatively ineffective in the grand scheme of things, strikes.

Carpet bombing also doesn't describe it. Saturation bombing was the term I chose to use above - trying to overwhelm defences by sheer numbers. These attacks had some limited effect in those terms.

In the end, however destructive, these strikes have had a surprisingly small casualty rate. I hope that continues. Their military worth in the long term will be next to useless, and a waste of hardware.