Hello everybody! Yesterday around 15.30hrs local time, a Russian Su-34 deployed four UMPB D-30 (their small diameter bomb) to strike Kharkiv. Yup, the city of Kharkiv. And then not some kind of industrial facilities, military base or anything like ‘dual use’ facility, but: a crossroad in the centre of Kharkiv, with a row of low buildings with small shops (Ukraine is not yet in the EU, so it still has local groceries and other small shops), surrounded by dozens of tall apartment buildings…
Thank you for the update. I understand the logic of what Ukraine needs to do. This will take some time. Just wondering is this something that should be prioriteres above Sead/Dead tactics against Russian airdefenses?
Because SEAD/DEAD is just another aspect of typical Western 'set apiece battle' for another neverending war - while what Ukraine needs is crystal clear: weapons capable of delivering decisive blows.
Sure, it's not 'sexy' when a single tactical ballistic missile blows up an entire column of Russian tanks, but: hand heart, works better than 300 FPVs.
....and FPVs can't reach 100-200-300km behind the frontlines to hit Russian Iskander-, Tochka-U-, or S-300 launchers, or air bases.
Ok, that was how I read it. But my guess is that it will not be possible to truly go ballistic immediately. But they seem to be doing it. Lets hope they continue down that read at least.
" it's not 'sexy' when a single tactical ballistic missile blows up an entire column of Russian tanks" - why, that would please me more than A.Jolie performing a lap-dance...
This is not an either/or situation. All weapons systems support all other weapons systems. The air defenses will degrade offensive strikes so it's good to reduce their effectiveness. But the objective isn't to destroy the air defenses, it's to destroy what they are protecting. So when there is a reasonable chance to destroy Russia's ability to kill, take it.
Regarding the Air Force vs. Missile force discussion: In the 2030's, drones will be accompanying manned aircraft to multiply their capabilities and assume risks that are not acceptable for pilots. By the 2050's the aircraft will be unmanned. Missiles are a current component of what will be the future norm.
I would like Sullivan to visit Kharkiv or the same village where Steinmeyer in 2022 had to sit underground in the same place the poor Ukrainians were held as hostages. Or to see children and young men crippled by this war. I wish him to be frightened out of his wits.
I think he is all the time bargaining with Putler one way or another. But one cannot deal with such a rascal. Putler is not the same man as former Soviet leaders.
As far as I understand it is only Iran that has really been working hard on ballistic missile programme and numbers in particular? So nowhere in the world one can procure that, one needs to build that?
UA has certain know how in production of huge rockets, and I think underground launch platforms as well. Could such "super big rocket" with say cluster warhead, be a solution? At least for ABs. And will then ru respond with their Topols or something, employing non-nuke warheads?
Long-range ballistic missiles are going to be very expensive anyway - because of the huge amount of fuel needed for the ascend of the missile. This is why any space operations are *that* expensive. And this is why nobody uses them in hundreds.
And they will be subject to long-range GPS jamming, which is being tested on the civilian airplanes of northern Europe, thus a whole wave of missiles may miss its target.
....which is why I'm not talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles, but about tactical ballistic missiles. Range of 600km is perfectly within what Ukrainians can do - and with quite some ease.
It's also enough to place satellites into the geostationary orbit.
I don't think there is much difference in the terms of fuel requirements between an intercontinental and 600 km which needs to be pushed some 100 km above the ground.
You'd be surprised, but there is significant difference between those - both in terms of fuel, and for their capability of shedding kinetic energy on the way down.
The BBC highlights ATACMS Agression on innocent beach goers while not saying much about Kharkiv. Can’t wait for NYT report. Let’s hope Ukraine can develop the RUK plan asap.
I'm with Tom- I don't understand why more people aren't furious, aghast, horrified by the Russian strikes clearly aimed at civilians. The Russian military isn't THAT incompetent, so it's pretty clear it's part of a terror & demoralization campaign against civilians that has no place in the 21st century. And specifically, it's war crimes also.
The Russian military is that incompetent. It's been that incompetent since 1950s!
Terror and atrocities are used in place of military efficiency. If you can't hit factories or assembly points or logistics, you try to demoralise civilians with indiscriminate bombing (this never works).
Look at what Russians did to Grozny or Syrian towns. Look at how they've randomly attacked various civilian targets in Ukraine.
It's easy hitting civilian targets. Cities are huge. Kharkov covers an area of 310 km2. It's not hard for even crap Russian military equipment to smash apartment buildings, shops, warehouses, universities etc etc.
It's easy pickings for a ruthless force.
Eg say you want to lob a bomb at the Kharkov University.
If the bomb misses the university, there's a major hospital, a hotel, a square, a court building and lots of other important buildings around it.
Ukrainians are lucky the bomb hit the square and not an actual building full of people.
You ask: what kind of ‘military’ is it that’s deploying weapons that are missing by 150 metres to strike any kind of a target in the centre of a big urban area….?
What kind? NATO kind!
During 78 days of aggression on Serbia NATO manage to kill more than 3000 civilians and 1005 soldiers!
Russian weapons are even poorer than western ones - Kh-22 CEP is about 5 km.
But I do believe Russians also bomb indiscriminately. So they might have been aiming for a kindergarten but the bomb/missile deviated a few hundreds meters or even several km and hit a square instead.
Yes, no doubt: NATO killed far too many civilians in 1999.
But: let me remind you that the intervention in question was no 'aggression': Aggressor in that war was Serbia. NATO was working without authorisation of the UN, and attacked Serbia because this was showing no signs of stopping its aggression - including countless atrocities (from that point of view, it's irrelevant if some of these were committed on the officially Serbian soil).
Just like in the case of Ukraine: 'enough was enough'.
Moreover, most of NATO learned its lesson from that affair. The Russians are learning nothing at all, and still behaving like it's the 12th Century.
I am a Croat who was in the war in 1991. Serb mortar hit my house while I was in it and Serb sniper nearly took my head off.....
...but Serbia was not the aggressor in 1999. Kosovo was and still is ilunder UN part of Serbia.
The Albanians played the propaganda war well and it also suited West who wanted to destroy Serbia after its other wars of actual aggression.
It was same as NATO attack on Libya.
NATO even turned a blind eye to Albanian Kosovars expanding the conflict into neighbouring North Macedonia and Serbia proper before it started getting out of hand and NATO allowed Serbs and North Macedonians to send their military into border regions. In this case NATO didn't care that Serb Army was engaging in atrocities and action against Albanian majority in from 2000-01 in Presovo Valley .
You also forget Serbs who were expelled from Croatia in 1995 had lived their since 1500s.
But NATO didn't care sbout Croatia commiting similar atrocities that Serbs committed in 1999
As much as there are Serbs who wish for Greater Serbia, there are Croats wishing for Greater Croatia and Albanians wishing for Greater Albania.
Right 2 Protect is a load of garbage.
US doesn't care about human rights. If you are a US ally like Saudi Arabia you can commit as many warcrimes as you like. Uncle Sam will even providevyour bombers with weapons, maintenance and aerial refuelling.
Up front, I do not care about nationalities of religious orientations. I care about the fact that we're all homo sapiens sapiens, and our deeds and facts. Therefore, to me it matters next to nothing where you are from.
Serbia was an aggressor in four wars in the Balkans of the 1990s. In two of these, Serbia also committed countless atrocities against civilians. This is a matter of fact.
Now, back then, the situation was so that the West concluded: 'OK, enough of that, we've got to stop it'. Reasons/motivation for that conclusion can be discussed without an end, and there are hundreds of books and thousands of articles doing so. Point is: that was a matter of fact and what mattered at the time.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
The West did try to negotiate with Milosevic, and tried it through the UN - but without success. Essentially for the same set of reasons why nowadays all the negotiations with Pudding are failing.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
Therefore, the West decided to act and stop Milosevic/Serbia. Unilaterally. And then stopped him/them. Ever since, there's at least semblance of peace. Otherwise, the Serbs would continue mass-murdering (they were not the only ones to do so, but the first and also the biggest war criminals in wars in former Yugoslavia) and the war would still go on. Indeed, and because in reaction to the Serbian aggression and atrocities in 1994 both Iran and Saudi Arabia began sending Islamist extremists, one can be sure that not only Bosnia i Herzegovina, but also (Northern) Macedonia and Sandzhak (in Serbia) would've been full of such gangs too.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
....then you come over with explaining me that I've 'forgot the Serbs expelled from Croatia'.
Since I know, from first hand experience, that there is not a single homo sapiens sapiens capable of online psychoanalsis - so you would know what have I 'forgotten' or not (or indeed: what do I know and what not), just for example - and you're obviously so dumb as not to be aware I'm not only editor and illustrator, but also the person to have initiated entire series of books related to topics in question, developed concepts for them and then commissioned top-notch authors to realise resulting projects (for details, see here: https://www.helion.co.uk/series/europeatwar.php?sid=25fe53502e2ad42ba2ee7d5ec8338e84)... conclusion is on hand (based on 30+ years of online experience) that any further discussions with somebody like you is an entirely pointless waste of time.
Let me remind you that UCK was terrorist organisation recognised by international community as such, including USA, until in 1998. USA decide to rename it to "freedom fighters".
You are right: just like in Ukraine. We have Buch just like we had Račak at Kosovo. West oligarchs can proclaim whatever they want and western peasants wont question anything, they still behaving like it's the 12th Century.
Just like NATO in 1999. proclaim 120 destroyed Serbian tanks during 78 days of "air superiority" but in reality it was 10 times less!
Mind explaining me: what of what you've 'listed' here is changing anything about the nature of Milosevic's/Serbian aggressive wars and mass atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia i Herzegowina of 1991-1995, or in Kosovo of the same time and up to 1999?
I read the attacks on civilian targets as a kind of Russian admission that they're losing the war and the one hope is to destroy the morale of the Ukrainian people.
Otherwise they would use those weapons on military targets rather than wasting them on striking downtown intersections.
Of course history has shown, in so many examples, that bombing civilians increases the determination to resist. But if Russians actually studied history they would not be where they are today...
The Russians have been smashing civilians since the start of the war.
These people raped and slaughtered there way through Germany when they were winning back in 1945. They committed mass atrocities in Chechnya and Syria.
Russian military is not a western style military. It's as much a terror weapon and a force for arbitrary carnage as it is a military force.
You are absolutely right; I hope that Ukraine is enabled by the West and/or itself to strike the required targets in RU. Look how long it's taken for the West to scrounge around for more AD systems and interceptors, and I wonder how long they'll last....
None from a political perspective. You think NATO and Americans care about dead Russians?
Ukraine could murder every single human being in Belgorod and Kursk and the Americans and Europeans wouldn't care.
At most there would be some strongly worded slap on the wrist "don't do this again."
Now OK Ukraine doesn't engage in deliberate atrocities against civilians, but many American alloes like Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc do and thexUS turns a blind eye.
I think even if the missiles were launched at civilian targets, they probably missed their targets.
Eg the Russians aimed at a hospital or kindergarten but hit a square and university or instead several hundred metres or even a few kilometres away.
---
Also Russian RUK concept doesn't seem to really work* but I suspect that's due to usual Russian issues of corruption, bad training, 1700s command culture, extreme lack of flexibility, dismal ISTAR (especially space based ones).
*If Russian RUK concept worked, they would be exhibiting far better results than they are in real life.
Such a system would work far better in western hands including Ukrainian ones.
Thanks for the update. Konigsberg opened a new cruise missile factory https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HGesjgAgKb4. What are you're thoughts on air launched ballistic missiles for hitting more static targets like S-300 and S-400 sites. The ATACMS were originally designed to be air launched for example. It does make sense to put an emphasis on ground launched ballistic missiles. But maybe also making air launched ballistic missiles an option could cause serious havoc to Russian S-300 and S-400 sites. But yes fully agree West should make production of ballistic missiles including Ukrainian funding of ballistic missile program.
Once one has a 'working' tactical ballistic missile, it's 'relatively easy' to 'convert' it to an air-launched ballistic missile. That's what the Russians did with the Kinzhal and what the Israelis did with their ROCKS, Blue Sparrow etc.
Thanks for the update. People, children in Kharkiv were at home and were killed. While in Sebastopol occupants arrive to have a rest. Pity the children that their parents are idiots
I can't agree with you more. Taking into account how carefully Ukraine uses western weapon.... Sometimes I think why we can't accumulate 50 ATACAMS, then without any approve from US hit the airbases to stop this terror. I don't think that USA will stop aid because of this. Especially during election period. Especially if we recall that USA already stop aid for half a year without any reason from Ukraine.
Shit happens in war. Occams razor goes for simplest solution - maybe the Ukrainians targeted the wrong target due to wrong intel. Maybe their missile malfunctioned.
I tire of these stories of false flags. According to westerners every single thing the Russians do is a false flag.
In reality not so, Russian thinking is often brutish and simple.
Just read a book by Max Hastings about 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Americans thought whole missiles were part of a complex conspiracy for Russians to get Berlin.
In reality Khurschv was pissed off about American Jupiter missiles in Turkey so he thought he would give Americans some of their own medicine by installing nukes in Cuba. Everyone knew the nukes in Cuba didn't even change the strategic balance.
No conspiracy, no sophisticated plans, just plain old Russian simplicity.
You are a liar, that's all. Russia has absolutely no benefit from these attacks, only image losses. Of course, these are military targets equipped with human shields. No, I don't like Putin, but I like the truth.
Today Norwegian TV showed footage from the attack. Paramedics helping, injured people getting carried always etc. i will say overall the story told wasnt overlykkelig Russian friendly, they mentioned that Russia had attacked, comments and discussions. Still, the picture was clear, children had been killed by Ukrainia. Of course Russia benefitted, in a way they wouldnt Else. Also, according to the Norwegian correspondent in Moscow Russian TV showed image from this, including planes from Moscow transporting injured people to improved care. (One does wonder how they treat their soldiers…). Anyhow the point is simple. Russia made a propaganda piece out of this and benefitted. I am definetly not saying it was a false flag operation, But Russia benefitted from this when it comes to propaganda.
Ukraine is not yet in the EU, so it still has local groceries and other small shops /// Some strange remark. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been in the EU for 20 years, but we also have our own local networks and shops. In France, I also definitely saw purely local shops.
Be happy it's that way. When I walk the streets of Vienna or Graz and then compare what they used to look like in the 1990s.... nowadays, it's 'all the same chains' everywhere.
And then check what happened to small shops in the USA or the UK... entire towns are dying out.
Thank you for the update. I understand the logic of what Ukraine needs to do. This will take some time. Just wondering is this something that should be prioriteres above Sead/Dead tactics against Russian airdefenses?
Actually yes: it is.
Because SEAD/DEAD is just another aspect of typical Western 'set apiece battle' for another neverending war - while what Ukraine needs is crystal clear: weapons capable of delivering decisive blows.
Sure, it's not 'sexy' when a single tactical ballistic missile blows up an entire column of Russian tanks, but: hand heart, works better than 300 FPVs.
....and FPVs can't reach 100-200-300km behind the frontlines to hit Russian Iskander-, Tochka-U-, or S-300 launchers, or air bases.
Ok, that was how I read it. But my guess is that it will not be possible to truly go ballistic immediately. But they seem to be doing it. Lets hope they continue down that read at least.
The know-how is there, the tools are there, the designs are available. The 'sole element missing' is putting all of that into production.
Not a small element, But doable.
" it's not 'sexy' when a single tactical ballistic missile blows up an entire column of Russian tanks" - why, that would please me more than A.Jolie performing a lap-dance...
This is not an either/or situation. All weapons systems support all other weapons systems. The air defenses will degrade offensive strikes so it's good to reduce their effectiveness. But the objective isn't to destroy the air defenses, it's to destroy what they are protecting. So when there is a reasonable chance to destroy Russia's ability to kill, take it.
Regarding the Air Force vs. Missile force discussion: In the 2030's, drones will be accompanying manned aircraft to multiply their capabilities and assume risks that are not acceptable for pilots. By the 2050's the aircraft will be unmanned. Missiles are a current component of what will be the future norm.
I think you are right regarding the development, But for Ukraine the question is to win before 2030… well, both helps, But its a prioritastion.
I would like Sullivan to visit Kharkiv or the same village where Steinmeyer in 2022 had to sit underground in the same place the poor Ukrainians were held as hostages. Or to see children and young men crippled by this war. I wish him to be frightened out of his wits.
Perhaps because he knows he might need to do that, he doesn't visit
I think he is all the time bargaining with Putler one way or another. But one cannot deal with such a rascal. Putler is not the same man as former Soviet leaders.
Dear Tom, thank you for update!
As far as I understand it is only Iran that has really been working hard on ballistic missile programme and numbers in particular? So nowhere in the world one can procure that, one needs to build that?
UA has certain know how in production of huge rockets, and I think underground launch platforms as well. Could such "super big rocket" with say cluster warhead, be a solution? At least for ABs. And will then ru respond with their Topols or something, employing non-nuke warheads?
Turkey has also a big ballistic missiles program, as far as I understand
Thanks Tom this report made lots of sense to me, lets hope if the western allies aren't going to step up then Ukraine will some how
Long-range ballistic missiles are going to be very expensive anyway - because of the huge amount of fuel needed for the ascend of the missile. This is why any space operations are *that* expensive. And this is why nobody uses them in hundreds.
And they will be subject to long-range GPS jamming, which is being tested on the civilian airplanes of northern Europe, thus a whole wave of missiles may miss its target.
....which is why I'm not talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles, but about tactical ballistic missiles. Range of 600km is perfectly within what Ukrainians can do - and with quite some ease.
It's also enough to place satellites into the geostationary orbit.
I don't think there is much difference in the terms of fuel requirements between an intercontinental and 600 km which needs to be pushed some 100 km above the ground.
You'd be surprised, but there is significant difference between those - both in terms of fuel, and for their capability of shedding kinetic energy on the way down.
Sending a load in orbit is much harder than a ballistic missile.
Don't think height, think speed. Flying in orbit requires a 5-digit horizontal velocity (Kms/HR)
The BBC highlights ATACMS Agression on innocent beach goers while not saying much about Kharkiv. Can’t wait for NYT report. Let’s hope Ukraine can develop the RUK plan asap.
I'm with Tom- I don't understand why more people aren't furious, aghast, horrified by the Russian strikes clearly aimed at civilians. The Russian military isn't THAT incompetent, so it's pretty clear it's part of a terror & demoralization campaign against civilians that has no place in the 21st century. And specifically, it's war crimes also.
The Russian military is that incompetent. It's been that incompetent since 1950s!
Terror and atrocities are used in place of military efficiency. If you can't hit factories or assembly points or logistics, you try to demoralise civilians with indiscriminate bombing (this never works).
Look at what Russians did to Grozny or Syrian towns. Look at how they've randomly attacked various civilian targets in Ukraine.
All true, but they've been remarkably precise hitting far too many Ukr civilian targets... Unfortunately.
It's easy hitting civilian targets. Cities are huge. Kharkov covers an area of 310 km2. It's not hard for even crap Russian military equipment to smash apartment buildings, shops, warehouses, universities etc etc.
It's easy pickings for a ruthless force.
Eg say you want to lob a bomb at the Kharkov University.
If the bomb misses the university, there's a major hospital, a hotel, a square, a court building and lots of other important buildings around it.
Ukrainians are lucky the bomb hit the square and not an actual building full of people.
You ask: what kind of ‘military’ is it that’s deploying weapons that are missing by 150 metres to strike any kind of a target in the centre of a big urban area….?
What kind? NATO kind!
During 78 days of aggression on Serbia NATO manage to kill more than 3000 civilians and 1005 soldiers!
NATO KILL THREE TIMES MORE CIVILIANS!!
Very true.
Russian weapons are even poorer than western ones - Kh-22 CEP is about 5 km.
But I do believe Russians also bomb indiscriminately. So they might have been aiming for a kindergarten but the bomb/missile deviated a few hundreds meters or even several km and hit a square instead.
Yes, no doubt: NATO killed far too many civilians in 1999.
But: let me remind you that the intervention in question was no 'aggression': Aggressor in that war was Serbia. NATO was working without authorisation of the UN, and attacked Serbia because this was showing no signs of stopping its aggression - including countless atrocities (from that point of view, it's irrelevant if some of these were committed on the officially Serbian soil).
Just like in the case of Ukraine: 'enough was enough'.
Moreover, most of NATO learned its lesson from that affair. The Russians are learning nothing at all, and still behaving like it's the 12th Century.
I am a Croat who was in the war in 1991. Serb mortar hit my house while I was in it and Serb sniper nearly took my head off.....
...but Serbia was not the aggressor in 1999. Kosovo was and still is ilunder UN part of Serbia.
The Albanians played the propaganda war well and it also suited West who wanted to destroy Serbia after its other wars of actual aggression.
It was same as NATO attack on Libya.
NATO even turned a blind eye to Albanian Kosovars expanding the conflict into neighbouring North Macedonia and Serbia proper before it started getting out of hand and NATO allowed Serbs and North Macedonians to send their military into border regions. In this case NATO didn't care that Serb Army was engaging in atrocities and action against Albanian majority in from 2000-01 in Presovo Valley .
You also forget Serbs who were expelled from Croatia in 1995 had lived their since 1500s.
But NATO didn't care sbout Croatia commiting similar atrocities that Serbs committed in 1999
As much as there are Serbs who wish for Greater Serbia, there are Croats wishing for Greater Croatia and Albanians wishing for Greater Albania.
Right 2 Protect is a load of garbage.
US doesn't care about human rights. If you are a US ally like Saudi Arabia you can commit as many warcrimes as you like. Uncle Sam will even providevyour bombers with weapons, maintenance and aerial refuelling.
Up front, I do not care about nationalities of religious orientations. I care about the fact that we're all homo sapiens sapiens, and our deeds and facts. Therefore, to me it matters next to nothing where you are from.
Serbia was an aggressor in four wars in the Balkans of the 1990s. In two of these, Serbia also committed countless atrocities against civilians. This is a matter of fact.
Now, back then, the situation was so that the West concluded: 'OK, enough of that, we've got to stop it'. Reasons/motivation for that conclusion can be discussed without an end, and there are hundreds of books and thousands of articles doing so. Point is: that was a matter of fact and what mattered at the time.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
The West did try to negotiate with Milosevic, and tried it through the UN - but without success. Essentially for the same set of reasons why nowadays all the negotiations with Pudding are failing.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
Therefore, the West decided to act and stop Milosevic/Serbia. Unilaterally. And then stopped him/them. Ever since, there's at least semblance of peace. Otherwise, the Serbs would continue mass-murdering (they were not the only ones to do so, but the first and also the biggest war criminals in wars in former Yugoslavia) and the war would still go on. Indeed, and because in reaction to the Serbian aggression and atrocities in 1994 both Iran and Saudi Arabia began sending Islamist extremists, one can be sure that not only Bosnia i Herzegovina, but also (Northern) Macedonia and Sandzhak (in Serbia) would've been full of such gangs too.
(Most of) The Serbs (and allies/sympathisers) have ignored that fact back then, just like they're ignoring it until this very day.
....then you come over with explaining me that I've 'forgot the Serbs expelled from Croatia'.
Since I know, from first hand experience, that there is not a single homo sapiens sapiens capable of online psychoanalsis - so you would know what have I 'forgotten' or not (or indeed: what do I know and what not), just for example - and you're obviously so dumb as not to be aware I'm not only editor and illustrator, but also the person to have initiated entire series of books related to topics in question, developed concepts for them and then commissioned top-notch authors to realise resulting projects (for details, see here: https://www.helion.co.uk/series/europeatwar.php?sid=25fe53502e2ad42ba2ee7d5ec8338e84)... conclusion is on hand (based on 30+ years of online experience) that any further discussions with somebody like you is an entirely pointless waste of time.
Therefore, I'll stop right here.
Let me remind you that UCK was terrorist organisation recognised by international community as such, including USA, until in 1998. USA decide to rename it to "freedom fighters".
You are right: just like in Ukraine. We have Buch just like we had Račak at Kosovo. West oligarchs can proclaim whatever they want and western peasants wont question anything, they still behaving like it's the 12th Century.
Just like NATO in 1999. proclaim 120 destroyed Serbian tanks during 78 days of "air superiority" but in reality it was 10 times less!
Mind explaining me: what of what you've 'listed' here is changing anything about the nature of Milosevic's/Serbian aggressive wars and mass atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia i Herzegowina of 1991-1995, or in Kosovo of the same time and up to 1999?
I read the attacks on civilian targets as a kind of Russian admission that they're losing the war and the one hope is to destroy the morale of the Ukrainian people.
Otherwise they would use those weapons on military targets rather than wasting them on striking downtown intersections.
Of course history has shown, in so many examples, that bombing civilians increases the determination to resist. But if Russians actually studied history they would not be where they are today...
The Russians have been smashing civilians since the start of the war.
These people raped and slaughtered there way through Germany when they were winning back in 1945. They committed mass atrocities in Chechnya and Syria.
Russian military is not a western style military. It's as much a terror weapon and a force for arbitrary carnage as it is a military force.
You are absolutely right; I hope that Ukraine is enabled by the West and/or itself to strike the required targets in RU. Look how long it's taken for the West to scrounge around for more AD systems and interceptors, and I wonder how long they'll last....
Whats the impact of Ukranian attacks on crimea?
These are destroying the Russian air defences - instead of objects Ukraine actually wants to destroy.
None from a political perspective. You think NATO and Americans care about dead Russians?
Ukraine could murder every single human being in Belgorod and Kursk and the Americans and Europeans wouldn't care.
At most there would be some strongly worded slap on the wrist "don't do this again."
Now OK Ukraine doesn't engage in deliberate atrocities against civilians, but many American alloes like Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc do and thexUS turns a blind eye.
Should they care about dead Russians, though? It's easy to stop this way for Russians - just retreat. End of war. They choose not to do that.
Not saying they should care about dead Russians. I certaonly don't care about dead Russians...
Or dead Ukrainians for that matter.
I think even if the missiles were launched at civilian targets, they probably missed their targets.
Eg the Russians aimed at a hospital or kindergarten but hit a square and university or instead several hundred metres or even a few kilometres away.
---
Also Russian RUK concept doesn't seem to really work* but I suspect that's due to usual Russian issues of corruption, bad training, 1700s command culture, extreme lack of flexibility, dismal ISTAR (especially space based ones).
*If Russian RUK concept worked, they would be exhibiting far better results than they are in real life.
Such a system would work far better in western hands including Ukrainian ones.
Thanks for the update. Konigsberg opened a new cruise missile factory https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HGesjgAgKb4. What are you're thoughts on air launched ballistic missiles for hitting more static targets like S-300 and S-400 sites. The ATACMS were originally designed to be air launched for example. It does make sense to put an emphasis on ground launched ballistic missiles. But maybe also making air launched ballistic missiles an option could cause serious havoc to Russian S-300 and S-400 sites. But yes fully agree West should make production of ballistic missiles including Ukrainian funding of ballistic missile program.
Once one has a 'working' tactical ballistic missile, it's 'relatively easy' to 'convert' it to an air-launched ballistic missile. That's what the Russians did with the Kinzhal and what the Israelis did with their ROCKS, Blue Sparrow etc.
Thanks for the update. People, children in Kharkiv were at home and were killed. While in Sebastopol occupants arrive to have a rest. Pity the children that their parents are idiots
....if it was an Ukrainian missile at all.
The ZSU isn't striking own civilians for the purpose of false flag operations - like the Russians have been caught doing, again and again.
I can't agree with you more. Taking into account how carefully Ukraine uses western weapon.... Sometimes I think why we can't accumulate 50 ATACAMS, then without any approve from US hit the airbases to stop this terror. I don't think that USA will stop aid because of this. Especially during election period. Especially if we recall that USA already stop aid for half a year without any reason from Ukraine.
Shit happens in war. Occams razor goes for simplest solution - maybe the Ukrainians targeted the wrong target due to wrong intel. Maybe their missile malfunctioned.
I tire of these stories of false flags. According to westerners every single thing the Russians do is a false flag.
In reality not so, Russian thinking is often brutish and simple.
Just read a book by Max Hastings about 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Americans thought whole missiles were part of a complex conspiracy for Russians to get Berlin.
In reality Khurschv was pissed off about American Jupiter missiles in Turkey so he thought he would give Americans some of their own medicine by installing nukes in Cuba. Everyone knew the nukes in Cuba didn't even change the strategic balance.
No conspiracy, no sophisticated plans, just plain old Russian simplicity.
You are a liar, that's all. Russia has absolutely no benefit from these attacks, only image losses. Of course, these are military targets equipped with human shields. No, I don't like Putin, but I like the truth.
Polite answer: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Impolite answer ( this should be easier for your understanding level ): иди на хуй
You just believe in the propaganda of only one side. Impolite comment: this is stupid because in war both sides lie.
Today Norwegian TV showed footage from the attack. Paramedics helping, injured people getting carried always etc. i will say overall the story told wasnt overlykkelig Russian friendly, they mentioned that Russia had attacked, comments and discussions. Still, the picture was clear, children had been killed by Ukrainia. Of course Russia benefitted, in a way they wouldnt Else. Also, according to the Norwegian correspondent in Moscow Russian TV showed image from this, including planes from Moscow transporting injured people to improved care. (One does wonder how they treat their soldiers…). Anyhow the point is simple. Russia made a propaganda piece out of this and benefitted. I am definetly not saying it was a false flag operation, But Russia benefitted from this when it comes to propaganda.
Ukraine is not yet in the EU, so it still has local groceries and other small shops /// Some strange remark. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been in the EU for 20 years, but we also have our own local networks and shops. In France, I also definitely saw purely local shops.
Be happy it's that way. When I walk the streets of Vienna or Graz and then compare what they used to look like in the 1990s.... nowadays, it's 'all the same chains' everywhere.
And then check what happened to small shops in the USA or the UK... entire towns are dying out.