3 ms·

>The use by Russia of hard-to-replace Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles at the end of winter would appear to indicate increasing desperation in Moscow. F

by pydry 4y ago

>The use by Russia of hard-to-replace Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles at the end of winter would appear to indicate increasing desperation in Moscow. From what Ive read they were using regular cruise missiles and the Iranian drones to overwhelm, tie up and reveal Ukrainian AA. Meanwhile, Kinzhals were used to target AA installations specifically, coz they couldn't be shot down. The ultimate goal being to be able to degrade Ukrainian AA, such that Russia can start using its air force on the front line again with a lesser fear of it being shot down.

lm28469 4y ago
It depends who you ask, there are many interpretations: > The Kremlin likely deliberately launched missiles that Ukrainian air defenses cannot intercept to achieve results within the Russian information space despite the dwindling supplies of such missiles. Ihnat noted that Russia has up to 50 Kinzhal missiles and had used some missiles that it cannot replace. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely used these scarce missiles in fruitless attacks to appease the Russian pro-war and ultranationalist communities, which have overwhelmingly called on him to retaliate for the Bryansk Oblast incident on March 2 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-9-2023 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens...
- pydry 4y ago
  I'm kind of suspicious of sources that impute propaganda motives for military tactics. It's not that it's impossible, it's just that Occam's razor suggests that all other things being equal, military attacks are probably executed for the purposes of achieving military advantage.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    I think it's quite reasonable to look at propaganda motives, since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will"/propaganda/strategic communication purposes, there is literally no military tactical value for target like a behind-the-lines power plant, only the demoralizing propaganda effect of the population being without power with the expectation that they might pressure Ukrainian leadership towards whatever Russia wants.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will I've read many articles that have claimed this but never seen a shred of evidence presented for it ever. It's just assumed. Always. In fact, a good half of the articles that claimed it and simultaneously explained that it was a terrible tactic that historically has never worked. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for this and I think it is very clearly true. I am equally certain Russia knows this. So... no evidence + claims of a self defeating stupid tactic suggests to me that they might be blowing up power stations for reasons other than "to break their will".
      - lm28469 4y ago
        Everything point to the fact that Russians are very wrong about a lot of their assumptions. What seems stupid to us come straight from their "how to war" textbooks
  - enkid 4y ago
    All military actions are for a political purpose. Sometimes that's long term and sometimes it's short term. Trying to "get a win" to boost morale is quite common. Think Sherman taking Atlanta in time for Lincoln's 1864 election.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    You should read their articles, they offer plenty of insights with sources. You shouldn't view Russia as a unified block, there seem to be a lot of internal drama and politics going on, especially between Wagner and the Russian MoD, Kadyrov &co Russia loves symbols too: dates, ceremonies, "retaliations", &c. you gotta put a good shows to keep the wheel spinning. And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? They're not even remotely close to the front https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/01/putins-russian-critics-are-growing-ever-louder/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/01/putins-russian-critics-... https://www.dw.com/en/russia-can-wagner-head-yevgeny-prigozhin-challenge-putin/a-64744266 https://www.dw.com/en/russia-can-wagner-head-yevgeny-prigozh...
    - pydry 4y ago
      I dont view Russia as a wholly unified bloc (indeed, for personal reasons it would be a sheer impossibility for me to do so), and I'm well aware of prigozhin's trolling. I would find it hard to take that man at his word if he declared that the sky was blue. I dont think that there is any evidence that either are relevant here though. >And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? To tie up and overwhelm their air defences so that they have to be spread more thinly and can't be concentrated at the front. I forget the exact numbers but the drones were something like $10k and ended up being shot down by $500k missiles. Indeed it was an economically efficient tactic if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA Why would you degrade Kyiv AA if you can't even take Bakhmut ? It's not like Kyiv AA will stop the Russian current operations 700km away
        pydry 4y ago
        So that air power can safely be used in future offensives. AA deployed in Kiev is AA not deployed in Bakhmut.
jonathanstrange 4y ago
I doubt this was the rationale because (i) they continued to target a lot of civilian infrastructure and (ii) Ukraine continues to have enough AA to turn sorties deep into Ukrainian territory into suicide missions. Russia might be able to perform some real SEAD, it's a very dangerous threat to Ukraine, but this would come at substantially higher costs of losing expensive fighter jets that cannot be replaced for several years. That's the reason why they haven't tried it yet.
- pydry 4y ago
  Supposedly targeting the electricity network was also more about taking out AA and disrupting electric train logistics. It parallels the way that NATO took out Serbia's power grid in 1999 before executing their bombing campaign, probably for similar reasons (AA): https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/belgrade052599.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans... If the above thesis is correct and these strikes are about degrading AA, the measure of success is whether the russian airforce starts actually taking a role on the front line (recently it hasn't been much used).
enkid 4y ago
Trying to lob a few ballistic missiles at a couple of AA sites is not an effective route to suppressing any country's air defense system. Instead you want a systematic role back, which is the opposite of what we've seen Russia do.

by pydry 4y ago

lm28469 4y ago

It depends who you ask, there are many interpretations: > The Kremlin likely deliberately launched missiles that Ukrainian air defenses cannot intercept to achieve results within the Russian information space despite the dwindling supplies of such missiles. Ihnat noted that Russia has up to 50 Kinzhal missiles and had used some missiles that it cannot replace. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely used these scarce missiles in fruitless attacks to appease the Russian pro-war and ultranationalist communities, which have overwhelmingly called on him to retaliate for the Bryansk Oblast incident on March 2 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-9-2023 https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offens...

pydry 4y ago
I'm kind of suspicious of sources that impute propaganda motives for military tactics. It's not that it's impossible, it's just that Occam's razor suggests that all other things being equal, military attacks are probably executed for the purposes of achieving military advantage.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  I think it's quite reasonable to look at propaganda motives, since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will"/propaganda/strategic communication purposes, there is literally no military tactical value for target like a behind-the-lines power plant, only the demoralizing propaganda effect of the population being without power with the expectation that they might pressure Ukrainian leadership towards whatever Russia wants.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >since the whole campaign of missile barrages during the last year is obviously primarily for "breaking the will I've read many articles that have claimed this but never seen a shred of evidence presented for it ever. It's just assumed. Always. In fact, a good half of the articles that claimed it and simultaneously explained that it was a terrible tactic that historically has never worked. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for this and I think it is very clearly true. I am equally certain Russia knows this. So... no evidence + claims of a self defeating stupid tactic suggests to me that they might be blowing up power stations for reasons other than "to break their will".
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Everything point to the fact that Russians are very wrong about a lot of their assumptions. What seems stupid to us come straight from their "how to war" textbooks
- enkid 4y ago
  All military actions are for a political purpose. Sometimes that's long term and sometimes it's short term. Trying to "get a win" to boost morale is quite common. Think Sherman taking Atlanta in time for Lincoln's 1864 election.
- lm28469 4y ago
  You should read their articles, they offer plenty of insights with sources. You shouldn't view Russia as a unified block, there seem to be a lot of internal drama and politics going on, especially between Wagner and the Russian MoD, Kadyrov &co Russia loves symbols too: dates, ceremonies, "retaliations", &c. you gotta put a good shows to keep the wheel spinning. And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? They're not even remotely close to the front https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/01/putins-russian-critics-are-growing-ever-louder/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/01/putins-russian-critics-... https://www.dw.com/en/russia-can-wagner-head-yevgeny-prigozhin-challenge-putin/a-64744266 https://www.dw.com/en/russia-can-wagner-head-yevgeny-prigozh...
  - pydry 4y ago
    I dont view Russia as a wholly unified bloc (indeed, for personal reasons it would be a sheer impossibility for me to do so), and I'm well aware of prigozhin's trolling. I would find it hard to take that man at his word if he declared that the sky was blue. I dont think that there is any evidence that either are relevant here though. >And what military tactic is there to send inaccurate drones and missiles in civilian areas in the first place ? To tie up and overwhelm their air defences so that they have to be spread more thinly and can't be concentrated at the front. I forget the exact numbers but the drones were something like $10k and ended up being shot down by $500k missiles. Indeed it was an economically efficient tactic if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > if the goal is to degrade ukrainian AA Why would you degrade Kyiv AA if you can't even take Bakhmut ? It's not like Kyiv AA will stop the Russian current operations 700km away
      - pydry 4y ago
        So that air power can safely be used in future offensives. AA deployed in Kiev is AA not deployed in Bakhmut.

jonathanstrange 4y ago

I doubt this was the rationale because (i) they continued to target a lot of civilian infrastructure and (ii) Ukraine continues to have enough AA to turn sorties deep into Ukrainian territory into suicide missions. Russia might be able to perform some real SEAD, it's a very dangerous threat to Ukraine, but this would come at substantially higher costs of losing expensive fighter jets that cannot be replaced for several years. That's the reason why they haven't tried it yet.

pydry 4y ago
Supposedly targeting the electricity network was also more about taking out AA and disrupting electric train logistics. It parallels the way that NATO took out Serbia's power grid in 1999 before executing their bombing campaign, probably for similar reasons (AA): https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/belgrade052599.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans... If the above thesis is correct and these strikes are about degrading AA, the measure of success is whether the russian airforce starts actually taking a role on the front line (recently it hasn't been much used).

enkid 4y ago

Trying to lob a few ballistic missiles at a couple of AA sites is not an effective route to suppressing any country's air defense system. Instead you want a systematic role back, which is the opposite of what we've seen Russia do.