Both this event as well as the Iranian campaign expose the low stock piles that most NATO countries are facing.
But it's also exposing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. A single patriot missile, a single one, costs around $ 4 million, and its the only weapon that may intercept missiles that cost 1.5 up to 40 times less.
Even when taking the major Russian ballistic missiles like the Kh101, the Iskander and Kalibr the economics are better for the Russians between 4 and 1.5 ratio.
Moreover NATO has no weapon that can intercept the Iskanders which have had so far a 90% effectiveness. Good thing that Russia cannot mass produce them.
But here's the most interesting part: what you launch to intercept is not based on the cost of what's attacking you, but on the potential damage of not intercepting it.
If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft you may still have to launch a Patriot to intercept it, you can't risk your high command being eliminated because the attacking weapon was cheap.
PAC-3 MSE can take down Iskanders. Not a very favorable exchange rate when you fire 2-3 per Iskander, but still doable.
If NATO was fighting Russia, launch aircraft (and airbases) would be prime targets. Ukraine fights the way it does because of very limited funds and resources.
Not the only way. Sending drones against Russia's oil industry and logistics centres is having a pretty spectacular effect too, and Russia's having no luck defending against those either.
Numbers have never been in Ukraine's favor. With provided funds and tech by EU and US to mass produce long range weapons Ukraine managed to shorten the gap somewhat, but they're still losing, and they're a "zombie" country that is still afloat just because tens of billions are pumped into their economy and military every year.
My point is that conventional strike can provide a meaningful deterrent, even without the NATO umbrella or a domestic nuclear capability. If Putin had known in 2022 what this utterly gratuitous war would end up costing Russia, there's no way he would have gone ahead with it.
All of this is predicated on the reality that 70%+ of Americans don't want to be in this war, none of our allies want any part of it either, and the person who started it is a coward who expected to get an easy win. Now we're stuck with said coward unwilling to take the loss and make a deal, but also unwilling to escalate and takes greater risks to use weapons like JDAM's that are in sufficient stock to level whole countries from the air.
What we're seeing here isn't some great asymmetry, it's disgusting failures of leadership both when starting a war nobody wanted, and failing to end it before wasting billions in exquisite kit that was designed to open up near-peers to SEAD/DEAD.
I didn't really understand your comment. More than 50% of Americans poll as supporting Ukraine, with something like an even split between too much, too little, and enough, meaning sentiment is generally weighted that the US should be involved or do more. Polling in Europe is more supportive.
But you used the word 'want'. I don't imagine anyone wants to be involved. Everyone who is wants the other side to stop fighting.
Both this event as well as the Iranian campaign expose the low stock piles that most NATO countries are facing.
But it's also exposing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. A single patriot missile, a single one, costs around $ 4 million, and its the only weapon that may intercept missiles that cost 1.5 up to 40 times less.
Even when taking the major Russian ballistic missiles like the Kh101, the Iskander and Kalibr the economics are better for the Russians between 4 and 1.5 ratio.
Moreover NATO has no weapon that can intercept the Iskanders which have had so far a 90% effectiveness. Good thing that Russia cannot mass produce them.
But here's the most interesting part: what you launch to intercept is not based on the cost of what's attacking you, but on the potential damage of not intercepting it.
If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft you may still have to launch a Patriot to intercept it, you can't risk your high command being eliminated because the attacking weapon was cheap.
PAC-3 MSE can take down Iskanders. Not a very favorable exchange rate when you fire 2-3 per Iskander, but still doable.
If NATO was fighting Russia, launch aircraft (and airbases) would be prime targets. Ukraine fights the way it does because of very limited funds and resources.
> If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft…
I used to think like this as well, then I realized “how much do I value an apartment building full of people?” - which are often Russia’s targets.
Those are more likely to be misses than deliberate attacks. There's no value in striking apartment blocks void of military equipments.
You don't spend money to do so if you can hit more precious military or logistic or energy infrastructure.
There are way too many residential buildings hit for it to be an accident, all the time.
It’s a part of Moscow’s strategy to weaken civilian resolve. They did the same thing in Chechnya.
If defensive weapons don't work because too expensive, then the only way out seems to be M.A.D. which Ukraine can only attain if they join NATO.
Not the only way. Sending drones against Russia's oil industry and logistics centres is having a pretty spectacular effect too, and Russia's having no luck defending against those either.
It's a numbers game and I don't know if the numbers are in favor of Ukraine anymore, given this lack of defense weapons.
Numbers have never been in Ukraine's favor. With provided funds and tech by EU and US to mass produce long range weapons Ukraine managed to shorten the gap somewhat, but they're still losing, and they're a "zombie" country that is still afloat just because tens of billions are pumped into their economy and military every year.
My point is that conventional strike can provide a meaningful deterrent, even without the NATO umbrella or a domestic nuclear capability. If Putin had known in 2022 what this utterly gratuitous war would end up costing Russia, there's no way he would have gone ahead with it.
All of this is predicated on the reality that 70%+ of Americans don't want to be in this war, none of our allies want any part of it either, and the person who started it is a coward who expected to get an easy win. Now we're stuck with said coward unwilling to take the loss and make a deal, but also unwilling to escalate and takes greater risks to use weapons like JDAM's that are in sufficient stock to level whole countries from the air.
What we're seeing here isn't some great asymmetry, it's disgusting failures of leadership both when starting a war nobody wanted, and failing to end it before wasting billions in exquisite kit that was designed to open up near-peers to SEAD/DEAD.
I didn't really understand your comment. More than 50% of Americans poll as supporting Ukraine, with something like an even split between too much, too little, and enough, meaning sentiment is generally weighted that the US should be involved or do more. Polling in Europe is more supportive.
But you used the word 'want'. I don't imagine anyone wants to be involved. Everyone who is wants the other side to stop fighting.
EA-3167 is referring to Iran, not Ukraine.
Thank you, that’s correct.
Not sure what does it have to do with Patriot stock piling or the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare.
That's good. Time to stop this war.
yeah, just pull the troops out of ukraine!