3 ms·

Article claims that ATACMS have been highly effective, but all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down. As usual, everything is completely unclea

by klrtla 2y ago

Article claims that ATACMS have been highly effective, but all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down. As usual, everything is completely unclear in this stalemate war where both sides regularly claim overwhelming successes yet nothing has changed for 2 years.

lawn 2y ago
> As usual, everything is completely unclear Its only completely unclear if you think that the words of a dictatorship is equally trustworthy as a democracy plus the journalism of the rest of the free world.
- mrtacy 2y ago
  Taken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-using-us-atacms-missiles-hit-civilian-targets-luhansk-2024-06-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-usi... So either Russia shot down 4 of the 5 missiles and they landed in apartment buildings, or the one that landed on the beach was also shot down. Or they staged everything, including blowing up apartment buildings. Unlikely, since Defense Secretary Austin had emergency phone calls after the beach incident. Regarding the stalemate, maps shown at the Institute for the Study of War also show little change. No need for Russian sources here.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    "Reuters was unable to immediately verify the assertion..."
  - lawn 2y ago
    > Taken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: Of course, not all free media is competent and Reuters is making the exact same mistake of blindly citing Russian sources without doing due diligence.
    - lkasr 2y ago
      What would due diligence look like? Instead of sniping at comments, please link the correct approved journalistic version of the 5 ATACMS missiles that have or have not been shot down over Crimea. If the whole attack, including the beach incident, was staged, link to that.
      - lawn 2y ago
        > please link the correct approved journalistic version of the 5 ATACMS missiles that have or have not been shot down over Crimea. As far as I know, there isn't one. The only thing we have is Russian sources, which by their track-record is only fairy tail propaganda. Republishing such a story is not due diligence. Doing their own research would be.
addicted 2y ago
> Article claims that ATACMS have been highly effective, but all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down. Which is not at all in contradiction. The ATACMS could have been highly successful but not any longer. In fact, this would be exactly what you would expect if the claims in the article are true. > As usual, everything is completely unclear in this stalemate war where both sides regularly claim overwhelming successes yet nothing has changed for 2 years. Yeah it’s insane Russia continues in this war of aggression where they’re gaining no land, losing people at a clip of 2-3:1, losing its most modern weaponry against the decades old cast offs of the West, is reduced to begging North Korea for help, has probably already lost significant amounts of land to China, and all this against a country that until a decade ago didn’t barely had a military.
- speeder 2y ago
  People bashing Russia military but asking why Russia is attacking Ukraine are not figuring out that is exactly the reason for the war. Ukraine border is too close to Moscow, it is easy to go from Ukraine to Moscow and Russia know they would fail to defend themselves from a NATO land invasion from there. Thus why they are willing to pay a very high price to ensure this won't happen.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    I think also Russia doesn't want the headache of defending against a nuclear attack launched from Eastern Ukraine or the headache of worrying whether anti-ballistic missiles stationed in Eastern Ukraine might provide a decisive factor in a neutralization of Russia's ability to launch a nuclear retaliatory strike. The US really doesn't have to think about these things because there are oceans between it and any potential adversary powerful enough to threaten it: any defense of the US would rely mostly on its navy and air force. In contrast, the most destructive wars are those fought with land forces, e.g., WW I, WW II, the Chinese Civil War and the one time (namely, the US Civil War) that a big land war was fought in North America. (The American Revolutionary War was a mild affair compared to the 4 wars I just listed because unlike the 4 wars I just listed, the homeland of one of the combatants was never in jeopardy.) The US security establishment is privileged because it does not need to become competent at sharing a land mass (or, worse, a plain such as the European Plain shown in the link below) with nations with high military potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_plain.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_plain.png
justin66 2y ago
> all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down So Russia finally managed to chalk up a few wins? They were losing S-300 and S-400 sites at an alarming rate... to ATACMS. That's moderately ridiculous, since S-400 is supposed to be state of the art Russian military export technology.
- squidbeak 2y ago
  Its worth noting this was a daylight attack. Russia doesn't seem to have been able to take down the ATACMS missiles that struck the Vitino Center for Long-Range Space Communications complex later that night.
squidbeak 2y ago
"Nothing has changed in 2 years." 2 years ago, Russia was in full control of the Black Sea. Russia's IFV, tank and artillery storage depots were still well-stocked with vehicles. It was still able to fly A50 spy planes over the Sea of Azov and Black sea. Ukraine had no practical means of waging a campaign against Russian oil refineries, it had HIMARS, but no western tanks, Bradley IFVs, Patriot, Samp-T and NASAMs batteries, no Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, no prospect of western jets and their weapons systems. For balance, Ukraine still had its power stations, tens of thousands of its soldiers were still alive. Bakhmut and Avdiivka hadn't been razed, Vuhledar hadn't been shattered, and it had yet to spend part of its force on an poorly-judged counter-offensive. No matter how deadlocked it might seem today, a position isn't a stalemate when so much around either side's ability to wage war is in flux.

by klrtla 2y ago

lawn 2y ago

> As usual, everything is completely unclear Its only completely unclear if you think that the words of a dictatorship is equally trustworthy as a democracy plus the journalism of the rest of the free world.

mrtacy 2y ago
Taken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-using-us-atacms-missiles-hit-civilian-targets-luhansk-2024-06-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-usi... So either Russia shot down 4 of the 5 missiles and they landed in apartment buildings, or the one that landed on the beach was also shot down. Or they staged everything, including blowing up apartment buildings. Unlikely, since Defense Secretary Austin had emergency phone calls after the beach incident. Regarding the stalemate, maps shown at the Institute for the Study of War also show little change. No need for Russian sources here.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  "Reuters was unable to immediately verify the assertion..."
- lawn 2y ago
  > Taken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: Of course, not all free media is competent and Reuters is making the exact same mistake of blindly citing Russian sources without doing due diligence.
  - lkasr 2y ago
    What would due diligence look like? Instead of sniping at comments, please link the correct approved journalistic version of the 5 ATACMS missiles that have or have not been shot down over Crimea. If the whole attack, including the beach incident, was staged, link to that.
    - lawn 2y ago
      > please link the correct approved journalistic version of the 5 ATACMS missiles that have or have not been shot down over Crimea. As far as I know, there isn't one. The only thing we have is Russian sources, which by their track-record is only fairy tail propaganda. Republishing such a story is not due diligence. Doing their own research would be.

addicted 2y ago

> Article claims that ATACMS have been highly effective, but all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down. Which is not at all in contradiction. The ATACMS could have been highly successful but not any longer. In fact, this would be exactly what you would expect if the claims in the article are true. > As usual, everything is completely unclear in this stalemate war where both sides regularly claim overwhelming successes yet nothing has changed for 2 years. Yeah it’s insane Russia continues in this war of aggression where they’re gaining no land, losing people at a clip of 2-3:1, losing its most modern weaponry against the decades old cast offs of the West, is reduced to begging North Korea for help, has probably already lost significant amounts of land to China, and all this against a country that until a decade ago didn’t barely had a military.

speeder 2y ago
People bashing Russia military but asking why Russia is attacking Ukraine are not figuring out that is exactly the reason for the war. Ukraine border is too close to Moscow, it is easy to go from Ukraine to Moscow and Russia know they would fail to defend themselves from a NATO land invasion from there. Thus why they are willing to pay a very high price to ensure this won't happen.
- hollerith 2y ago
  I think also Russia doesn't want the headache of defending against a nuclear attack launched from Eastern Ukraine or the headache of worrying whether anti-ballistic missiles stationed in Eastern Ukraine might provide a decisive factor in a neutralization of Russia's ability to launch a nuclear retaliatory strike. The US really doesn't have to think about these things because there are oceans between it and any potential adversary powerful enough to threaten it: any defense of the US would rely mostly on its navy and air force. In contrast, the most destructive wars are those fought with land forces, e.g., WW I, WW II, the Chinese Civil War and the one time (namely, the US Civil War) that a big land war was fought in North America. (The American Revolutionary War was a mild affair compared to the 4 wars I just listed because unlike the 4 wars I just listed, the homeland of one of the combatants was never in jeopardy.) The US security establishment is privileged because it does not need to become competent at sharing a land mass (or, worse, a plain such as the European Plain shown in the link below) with nations with high military potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_plain.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_plain.png

justin66 2y ago

> all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down So Russia finally managed to chalk up a few wins? They were losing S-300 and S-400 sites at an alarming rate... to ATACMS. That's moderately ridiculous, since S-400 is supposed to be state of the art Russian military export technology.

squidbeak 2y ago
Its worth noting this was a daylight attack. Russia doesn't seem to have been able to take down the ATACMS missiles that struck the Vitino Center for Long-Range Space Communications complex later that night.

squidbeak 2y ago

"Nothing has changed in 2 years." 2 years ago, Russia was in full control of the Black Sea. Russia's IFV, tank and artillery storage depots were still well-stocked with vehicles. It was still able to fly A50 spy planes over the Sea of Azov and Black sea. Ukraine had no practical means of waging a campaign against Russian oil refineries, it had HIMARS, but no western tanks, Bradley IFVs, Patriot, Samp-T and NASAMs batteries, no Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, no prospect of western jets and their weapons systems. For balance, Ukraine still had its power stations, tens of thousands of its soldiers were still alive. Bakhmut and Avdiivka hadn't been razed, Vuhledar hadn't been shattered, and it had yet to spend part of its force on an poorly-judged counter-offensive. No matter how deadlocked it might seem today, a position isn't a stalemate when so much around either side's ability to wage war is in flux.