In reply to alx:
> What I can’t understand is what specifically was to be gained? How does frightening the UN frighten Truss when she’s not in Kyiv?
What's to be gained for Putin now in Ukraine more generally? It's at best a ruinously expensive festering sore.
If after an attack on Kyiv killing say a French envoy Lavrov holds a press conference and states the strike was in response to say German tanks being moved and those kiled were collateral damage, do you not think there would be quite unpredictable but potentially negative consequences for German politicians both domestically and internationally*? As well as for Russia of course which is already way down the shitlist!
*especially if it kept happening
> How does frightening or potentially killing the UN representative play out with all the other member states of the UN.
Unpredictably. It seems in isolation counterproductive but is possibly just a warning shot calculated to get serious attention but not provoke a specific response from any particular opposed power.
Or it's just the normal run of things, you could well be right.
> What is very likely is that due to security reasons the timings and locations of the UN visit would not have been shared with Russia.
It's possible the detail would be withheld but also possible it would be shared in order to minimise the risk of an accidental shoot down where a deliberate shoot down of a neutral (ish) diplomatic flight was considered very unlikely. Assuming of course our various leaders are all flying into somewhere in Ukraine which seems fairly likely given it's vast size.
> What has also been shown is that the Russian forces have incredibly poor planning, command and control in place.
In general yes but I suspect specific messages from the top through narrow, trusted, high level until the last stage channels flow better than most.
jk
Post edited at 13:31