Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

Last edited:
Not sure that's clever. I realize that Ukraine has, legally speaking, every right to strike at targets on Russian soil, and militarily speaking, many incentives to respond asymmetrically, but this is a super risky move for little potential gain. Unlike some other installations of the Russian nuclear forces (such as strategic bomber bases), this radar has no bearing on the conflict, it's destruction gives no tangible military advantage to Ukraine. At the same time it nudges Russian strategic calculations in a highly dangerous direction.

A waste of scarce Ukrainian munitions on a target of little direct value but significant escalation potential - i.e. not clever, as stated initially.

EDIT: Also not an action calculated to assuage skeptics of supplying weapons such as Taurus to Ukraine. Or rather, in that latter specific case, a welcome excuse for those refusing to hand it over to continue their obstinacy. Again, an own goal.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
Not sure that's clever. I realize that Ukraine has, legally speaking, every right to strike at targets on Russian soil, and militarily speaking, many incentives to respond asymmetrically, but this is a super risky move for little potential gain. Unlike some other installations of the Russian nuclear forces (such as strategic bomber bases), this radar has no bearing on the conflict, it's destruction gives no tangible military advantage to Ukraine. At the same time it nudges Russian strategic calculations in a highly dangerous direction.

A waste of scarce Ukrainian munitions on a target of little direct value but significant escalation potential - i.e. not clever, as stated initially.
Click to expand...
It has no bearing on the conflict except that it's super-expensive to replace, and that's money that ultimately comes from the same pot that the war is being funded from just like oil revenue wrt refineries being targeted.
Trident said:
EDIT: Also not an action calculated to assuage skeptics of supplying weapons such as Taurus to Ukraine. Or rather, in that latter specific case, a welcome excuse for those refusing to hand it over to continue their obstinacy. Again, an own goal.
Click to expand...
Ukraine struck it with their own weapon. To date they haven't hit anything outside of Ukraine with NATO weapons or tried to because NATO hasn't permitted it, not even the Kerch Bridge, although there are noises around changing those permissions, especially after the recent invasion/attemped invasion of Kharkiv. It would likely be only against approved targets if those permissions were changed, i.e. objects directly participating in the war.

www.defensenews.com

Pentagon unveils new Ukraine weapons package amid Russian offensive

The $275 million aid package includes artillery, anti-tank weapons, mines and other munitions.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom