4 ms·

The er.. much-vaunted S300 and S400 systems very recently proved ineffective against American HIMARS systems and the so-called 'hypersonic weapon' they used in

The er.. much-vaunted S300 and S400 systems very recently proved ineffective against American HIMARS systems and the so-called 'hypersonic weapon' they used in Ukraine (never mind 'why?') was basically a sub-ICBM missile that didn't operate within a hypersonic envelope. Such 'hypersonic' weapons have been in a lot of countries arsenals for decades now, they just called them ICBMs or whatever. The type of Hypersonic weapon mentioned in this thread is one that breaths air (either scram or ram jet, I forget)and so is an entirely different beast, one which Russia has no known capability of. You seem to have a flawed interpretation of the events in Ukraine - if anything, this war seems to highlight just how utterly advanced NATO's weaponry is against an increasingly evident paper tiger. If Russia didn't have the nuclear card to play, the situation on the ground (and air, water) would be VERY different. I doubt Russia would exist in its current state by this stage, its military having been utterly routed. Sadly for Ukraine, they hold that card and threaten it often, like all decent states do... .

cpursley 4y ago
The Russian Paper Tiger was supposed to run out of munitions three months ago, yet - here they are day after day conducting massive artillery and missile attacks, intercepting much of what is thrown at them and consistently taking over territory. And that's with the Junior team (small invading force vs defending force); much of the ground fighters are actually from the Ukrainian Donbas. - https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... - https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-russian-edge-in-electronic-warfare/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-r... - https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Two of those articles are pre-war; bit weird to cite given the difference in Russian performance between the theoretical and the in-practice thus far. Russia having lots of artillery tubes and shells has never been in doubt; it's other logistical aspects they seem to have struggled with. The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental, and balanced fairly well by losses near Kherson and Kharkiv. For the main axis of an invasion by one of the world's largest militaries, it's not much to brag about thus far.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    > The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental And you believe that is a failure? Considering that Russia's top objective is to take the Donbas, that seems like a success. Ukraine is not Iraq 2.0; they are/were the largest military in Europe outside of Russia. And that is without considering all the western weapons and training support.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > And you believe that is a failure? Yes, it's a clear failure thus far. Unexpectedly slow progress, unexpectedly high losses, and "we just want the Donbas" was clearly not the original goal. They're having to settle for that, and they'll have to hold it. > Considering that Russia's top objective is to take the Donbas, that seems like a success. Maybe you can borrow George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner?
      - cpursley 4y ago
        > Unexpectedly slow progress According to whom? TV news people? > unexpectedly high losses According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? > clearly not the original goal According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > According to whom? I mean, state media had a victory article ready to go (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240), and it's fairly clear they were hoping to capture or exile Zelensky and other officials in the first few days. > According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. On the geopolitical front, it appears Putin also managed an own-goal by driving Finland and Sweden towards NATO membership. Even the most tortured propaganda doesn't manage to portray that as a goal of his. > According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so. The same Kremlin that said they didn't plan to invade Ukraine? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-te...) Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas.
- detritus 4y ago
  Oh, Russia are and have been for decades now, VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people and mid-late Soviet-artillery at A Situation to 'win' it. They tend to be somewhat Pyrrhic victories, but what does that matter when you utterly control the domestic narrative? The basic strategy of total annihilaton is the same one beloved of Stalin, who called artillery "the God of war". He wasn't wrong, but I'm not sure the people underneath it much appreciate its effectivity. I don't think anyone beyond the ever-optimistic has at any point disputed that Russia has huge stocks of weaponry to draw from - it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Anyway, point here being that Russia doesn't have hypersonic weaponry in the vein tested by America here. They do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBMs and even a nuclear-powered [highly-polluting] cruise missile, or the submarine-based nuke which 'could wipe out the British Isles' which is Putin's wet dream. Subtle. Think of the outcry if anyone in the west even considered such ridiculousness in this day and age... . ed - anti-speed edits
  - cpursley 4y ago
    > VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. > it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Russia is ahead of the US with electronic warfare, ballistics and air defense. And that's a fact well recognized by western experts. > do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBM They've already successfully tested Satan's and will be deploying it soon. Or it's all a fake production to scare the west. What do I know.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. What do we define as winning here?, Ukraines tactic is to fall back to defensive positions when they are about to lose something so not to lose men. The gains Russia has made are very small and the amount of equipment and men it has taken to make them is huge. Most of those games where made before long range heavy western weapons started being delivered too, I suspect their gains will slow down even further because of this.

cpursley 4y ago

The Russian Paper Tiger was supposed to run out of munitions three months ago, yet - here they are day after day conducting massive artillery and missile attacks, intercepting much of what is thrown at them and consistently taking over territory. And that's with the Junior team (small invading force vs defending force); much of the ground fighters are actually from the Ukrainian Donbas. - https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... - https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-russian-edge-in-electronic-warfare/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-r... - https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/

ceejayoz 4y ago
Two of those articles are pre-war; bit weird to cite given the difference in Russian performance between the theoretical and the in-practice thus far. Russia having lots of artillery tubes and shells has never been in doubt; it's other logistical aspects they seem to have struggled with. The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental, and balanced fairly well by losses near Kherson and Kharkiv. For the main axis of an invasion by one of the world's largest militaries, it's not much to brag about thus far.
- cpursley 4y ago
  > The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental And you believe that is a failure? Considering that Russia's top objective is to take the Donbas, that seems like a success. Ukraine is not Iraq 2.0; they are/were the largest military in Europe outside of Russia. And that is without considering all the western weapons and training support.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > And you believe that is a failure? Yes, it's a clear failure thus far. Unexpectedly slow progress, unexpectedly high losses, and "we just want the Donbas" was clearly not the original goal. They're having to settle for that, and they'll have to hold it. > Considering that Russia's top objective is to take the Donbas, that seems like a success. Maybe you can borrow George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner?
    - cpursley 4y ago
      > Unexpectedly slow progress According to whom? TV news people? > unexpectedly high losses According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? > clearly not the original goal According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > According to whom? I mean, state media had a victory article ready to go (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240), and it's fairly clear they were hoping to capture or exile Zelensky and other officials in the first few days. > According to whom? Reddit armchair generals? As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan. On the geopolitical front, it appears Putin also managed an own-goal by driving Finland and Sweden towards NATO membership. Even the most tortured propaganda doesn't manage to portray that as a goal of his. > According to whom? The Kremlin never stated goals outside the original 4 or so. The same Kremlin that said they didn't plan to invade Ukraine? (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-tells-u-s-no-ukraine-invasion-planned-tass-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/russia-te...) Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas.
detritus 4y ago
Oh, Russia are and have been for decades now, VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people and mid-late Soviet-artillery at A Situation to 'win' it. They tend to be somewhat Pyrrhic victories, but what does that matter when you utterly control the domestic narrative? The basic strategy of total annihilaton is the same one beloved of Stalin, who called artillery "the God of war". He wasn't wrong, but I'm not sure the people underneath it much appreciate its effectivity. I don't think anyone beyond the ever-optimistic has at any point disputed that Russia has huge stocks of weaponry to draw from - it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Anyway, point here being that Russia doesn't have hypersonic weaponry in the vein tested by America here. They do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBMs and even a nuclear-powered [highly-polluting] cruise missile, or the submarine-based nuke which 'could wipe out the British Isles' which is Putin's wet dream. Subtle. Think of the outcry if anyone in the west even considered such ridiculousness in this day and age... . ed - anti-speed edits
- cpursley 4y ago
  > VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. > it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Russia is ahead of the US with electronic warfare, ballistics and air defense. And that's a fact well recognized by western experts. > do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBM They've already successfully tested Satan's and will be deploying it soon. Or it's all a fake production to scare the west. What do I know.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. What do we define as winning here?, Ukraines tactic is to fall back to defensive positions when they are about to lose something so not to lose men. The gains Russia has made are very small and the amount of equipment and men it has taken to make them is huge. Most of those games where made before long range heavy western weapons started being delivered too, I suspect their gains will slow down even further because of this.