3 ms·

Correct, the S-300 is a sophisticated missile designed to intercept highly maneuverable airplanes that have a number of defenses. The idea that you would shoot

by rsj_hn 4y ago

Correct, the S-300 is a sophisticated missile designed to intercept highly maneuverable airplanes that have a number of defenses. The idea that you would shoot such an expensive missile at a fixed ground target - in this case, a farm along the Polish border, where it hit a tractor and killed the tractor driver -- is crazy, and of course completely incompatible with the "Russia running out of missiles" narrative. What is much more likely is the simple explanation that these are AA missiles that Ukraine fired, trying to intercept a Russian missile or drone, and they missed their target, hitting the farm. That an AA missile failed to intercept and caused damage to infrastructure is completely normal for AA systems and has happened several times before -- an AA missile missed its target and hit an apartment building in Kharkov and another hit an office complex in Kiev. AA systems don't have a 100% interception rate, and those that don't intercept fall and cause damage in inconvenient places. As is usually the case, the simplest explanation is often the most plausible, whereas the most inflammatory explanation is what is promoted in media. Note that even Poland is urging people to remain calm and wait for an investigation, so they are actually more responsible than Western media.

celsoazevedo 4y ago
> completely incompatible with the "Russia running out of missiles" narrative I haven't seen anyone saying that Russia is running out of S-300. Other precision systems yes, but not S-300, which would explain the reports of them using S-300 to target land targets both in Kharkiv and Kherson. No idea what happened here btw, just pointing out why they might be using them. Also, mistakes and malfunctions happen.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  There are no credible reports of S-300 being used to target any land system. The S-300 would be a very poor missile to use this way, and it would make no sense to waste it blowing up unimportant targets, when Russia is still sending large waves of cheaper-to-produce missiles at strategically important systems like power plants. You would need to believe that an expensive missile is intentionally being used to blow up a city intersection somewhere or an office building while cheaper missiles are being used to knock out transformers and military barracks. That fails basic internal consistency checks. There are, however, plenty of credible reports of Ukrainian S-300s damaging random infrastructure in these areas (and in other areas), always in the aftermath of drone attacks and cruise missile attacks when the AA systems are activated. The randomness of the targets and their distance from any strategic target is evidence that they are AA misses that missed. Then we have the physical evidence, that this is an S-300 missile.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    British Military Intelligence is a credible source claiming Russia is using S-300 to attack land targets: https://defence-blog.com/russia-uses-soviet-era-air-defense-missiles-to-engage-ground-targets/ https://defence-blog.com/russia-uses-soviet-era-air-defense-...
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      British Military Intelligence is a credible source in the same way the Ukraine MOD is a credible source - they are participants in the conflict and have a propaganda mission to fulfill. In that case, you must believe that Russia was shelling its own nuclear power plant and that a Ukrainian woman destroyed a drone with a pickle jar. If that's credible to you, knock yourself out, I am not going to try to convince you, but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, non-aligned sources such as Indian/Mexican/Brazilian to be neutral, rather than looking to nations that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict as being neutral. I have lived through a lot of wars, and seen a lot of cheerleading for wars, especially in Western media. I remember the stories of Iraquis taking incubators out of Kuwait, of viagra being given to Libya's soldiers to rape women, etc. Western media and government institutions are often a spin machine for war - not all, there are anti-war outlets and reporters doing good work, but when you are talking about ministry of defense statements, you don't look for nations waging proxy wars as sources of reliable info about the conflict in question. I would apply the same level of credibility to Russian MoD statements as I would to British MoD.
      - celsoazevedo 4y ago
        > but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, Indian/Mexican/Brazilian media as being credible, but not Western media as they are influenced by governments that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict. If we apply the same thinking to those countries, why would the Indian media be credible when they rely on Russia for a lot of military equipment and now for cheap oil? Or Brazil when they buy Russian helicopters? I understand what you're saying [the original version of your comment], but it's hard to find credible sources when everyone has reasons to side with one side or the other. Who to trust?

by rsj_hn 4y ago

celsoazevedo 4y ago

> completely incompatible with the "Russia running out of missiles" narrative I haven't seen anyone saying that Russia is running out of S-300. Other precision systems yes, but not S-300, which would explain the reports of them using S-300 to target land targets both in Kharkiv and Kherson. No idea what happened here btw, just pointing out why they might be using them. Also, mistakes and malfunctions happen.

rsj_hn 4y ago
There are no credible reports of S-300 being used to target any land system. The S-300 would be a very poor missile to use this way, and it would make no sense to waste it blowing up unimportant targets, when Russia is still sending large waves of cheaper-to-produce missiles at strategically important systems like power plants. You would need to believe that an expensive missile is intentionally being used to blow up a city intersection somewhere or an office building while cheaper missiles are being used to knock out transformers and military barracks. That fails basic internal consistency checks. There are, however, plenty of credible reports of Ukrainian S-300s damaging random infrastructure in these areas (and in other areas), always in the aftermath of drone attacks and cruise missile attacks when the AA systems are activated. The randomness of the targets and their distance from any strategic target is evidence that they are AA misses that missed. Then we have the physical evidence, that this is an S-300 missile.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  British Military Intelligence is a credible source claiming Russia is using S-300 to attack land targets: https://defence-blog.com/russia-uses-soviet-era-air-defense-missiles-to-engage-ground-targets/ https://defence-blog.com/russia-uses-soviet-era-air-defense-...
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    British Military Intelligence is a credible source in the same way the Ukraine MOD is a credible source - they are participants in the conflict and have a propaganda mission to fulfill. In that case, you must believe that Russia was shelling its own nuclear power plant and that a Ukrainian woman destroyed a drone with a pickle jar. If that's credible to you, knock yourself out, I am not going to try to convince you, but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, non-aligned sources such as Indian/Mexican/Brazilian to be neutral, rather than looking to nations that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict as being neutral. I have lived through a lot of wars, and seen a lot of cheerleading for wars, especially in Western media. I remember the stories of Iraquis taking incubators out of Kuwait, of viagra being given to Libya's soldiers to rape women, etc. Western media and government institutions are often a spin machine for war - not all, there are anti-war outlets and reporters doing good work, but when you are talking about ministry of defense statements, you don't look for nations waging proxy wars as sources of reliable info about the conflict in question. I would apply the same level of credibility to Russian MoD statements as I would to British MoD.
    - celsoazevedo 4y ago
      > but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, Indian/Mexican/Brazilian media as being credible, but not Western media as they are influenced by governments that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict. If we apply the same thinking to those countries, why would the Indian media be credible when they rely on Russia for a lot of military equipment and now for cheap oil? Or Brazil when they buy Russian helicopters? I understand what you're saying [the original version of your comment], but it's hard to find credible sources when everyone has reasons to side with one side or the other. Who to trust?