Fits the trend of "overestimating" missile ranges in this war which we discussed a few days ago. If you call the ATACMS a "long range weapon" (which is a Short Range Ballistic Missile according to "classic" standards) there is little left what you can call systems with really long range.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Thank you for this. That must have been a pretty quick modification to those jets.
Thank you for this.
Not that this really means anything but we don't often see moments like this.
That's beyond surreal. You can clearly hear every word
Unless they've done it intentionally, it looks a bit too stupid even for them if that's a genuine mistake.
Last edited:
Yeah the Su-24 modification went pretty quickly apparently:
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_an...siles_for_ukrainian_su_24m_aircraft-9171.html
I am no expert but I believe part of the simplicity of integration is the fact that the missile destination/trajectory is pre-programmed on the ground before attaching to the jet. And for Ukraine, it is more important to just get things working as soon as possible and not having to go through design meetings/analysis/etc that such a process might normally go through. So the engineers had more freedom in that regard, as the article indicates.
Last edited:
The downside of this is that Ukraine doesn't have all the capabilities the cruise missile actually has. They can't assign targets in flight and such stuff, they have to follow a much more rigid and pre-planned mission profile. Still Ukraine has enough targets that are static enough so that they can use them effectively.
Yes that would be right.
Ah I see. They carried them on Pylons from the Tornado which was pretty smart.
With translation
Why would it matter if the missile fired was an ICBM or not? Surely the west knows Russia has access to these things. Is it just because a potential nuke would be loaded onto one?
It could be interpreted in any number of ways from a threat of escalation by Putin to a sign of desperation warranting the use of the next higher level of military hardware available.
A nuke isn't really the big issue here. Nukes could be loaded on SRBMs like Iskander as well as on cruise missiles or even be fired as artillery ammunition. Russia is using a lot of systems that could be used for nukes all the time. Personally I think it's more interesting from the opposite point of view: Why does Russia need to use such a long range system when they could use shorter range systems that they successfully use all the time? There is different possible explanations, some very positive like "Russia by now lacks SRBMs" to less positive ones like "Russia simply wanted to demonstrate the readiness of their ICBMs - just instead of a regular test flight they should it at an actual target". Personally I tend to the latter explanation - this is simple a regular missile test, with the added bonus of actually doing something with the missile.
Yes, it’s apparently the first ICBM fired in anger. And Putin alerted everyone he was going to launch it, and launch it empty, in order to prevent a response.
I think this is most likely, a demonstration of their abilities and an implied threat of a bigger, possibly nuclear, strike. And I do think they communicated this to the US beforehand, and the closing of embassies yesterday was probably related to this.
Yes I also think it was a very clear demonstration and threat in response to the US and UK supplied missile launches.
How this develops could prove highly significant. Especially in the lead up to President Trump inauguration.
The Nuclear Clock must be pretty close to 12 o'clock.
It got ICBM, nuclear and WW3 trending on social media, I'm sure that also played a role.
And here is me just concerned about the state of our country. All this talk about nuclear war and WW3 feels more like a distraction or way to create the charade how great Putin and Trump would be if they "end" the war.
Straight out of the playbook: make things sound way worse, then come in as the hero to fix it while selling souls to do so. At any moment I'm expecting the right to start propping up the narrative of how awful things are in Israel. Not because they really care, but because it makes scoring political pts far easier.
Just the two and a half years too late then.
Well that was fast, well done!
Don't think it can be used to hit the US then, unless they want to melt some snow in Alaska.
Yea Putin will maximize the escalation potential from these newly authorized strikes. The strikes themselves aren't likely to change the picture in a substantial way, the timeframe is too short, Russia has already withdrawn most of their aircraft fleet from out of range, and it'll take some time to extend the restrictions from strikes just around Kursk. Each strike will also likely need approval from the US/UK. And as has been pointed out in this thread, these aren't actually long range strikes. This something that politicians and media have done a poor job of articulating.
So in that sense it is poor timing. Minimal gains for maximum escalatory response (in narrative at least).
If Biden had authorized this right from the start, this would have been much less of an issue (and had greater effect). Instead it has been discussed as a red line both by Biden and Russia, specifically in the last 6 months or so. While congress, UK, France, EU, pretty much every military analyst, has been urging Biden to lift these restrictions, the Biden admin has delayed the decision with the risk of escalation, nuclear response, etc. Now with the Trump admin coming in with a supposed change in policy and negotiations talk, the support for these strikes has lessened from the Western side and Russia can exploit that.
Not only that, but if Ukraine is defeated, Russia will not stop there but will attack NATO’s eastern flank. For instance, Anne Applebaum wrote that, had the West not helped Ukraine, NATO would now be forced to prepare for “the inevitable invasion of Warsaw, Vilnius, or Berlin”.
Russia going into actual Germany, let alone Berlin seems quite the stretch, but the Baltics are at risk, for sure.
Haha, Jake Sullivan will never grasp the critical distinctions between hypersonic weapons and conventional ballistic missiles, nor will he have even a vague understanding of semiconductor physics or extreme ultraviolet lithography. Yet, he remains the golden poster boy for the ideal U.S. policy background, because he has a law degree, and helped prepare Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for presidential debates. Who needs grand strategy when you can write beautiful speeches.
Neither of these tweets say what the headlines say they do. Its misleading stuff based on cherrypicked tweets,
The one thing that is incontrovertible is that Ukraine has always had a right to pursue NATO membership. They are after all a sovereign country. Once you come to grips with that, all rational counterarguments end.
This was all the way back in 2014, slap bang during Euromaidan.
Then you have:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626
Look at all the pro-NATO flags at Euromaidan!
Oh look how it all began! Nothing to fecking do with NATO. Russians got pissed Ukraine wanted economic freedom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25032275
Yes indeed.
Putin has to deliver some kind of victory to the Russian people to justify the massive expense in money and soldiers killed or injured.
In the event that he can claim his victory over Ukraine, which seems quite possible, he will use that as a stepping stone for further gains.
The whole geopolitical scenario is becoming very worrying.
And the European eastern flank absolutely must be prepared to defend itself.
Losses to innocent people in the former Yugoslavia were inflicted long before NATO intervention. Long before.
Oh really.
The former Yugoslavia was nothing at all to do with Ukraine. It was due to conflicts between Serbia and Croatia and Kosovo.
And how do you think Afghanistan and Libya were anything to do with Ukraine or even NATO.
Talk about reinventing history.
Most likely he refers to this regarding Libya:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya