Tutto il dibattito sull’utilizzo ucraino dei missili occidentali a lunga gittata ruota attorno alla rischiosa ricerca, da parte degli USA e dei paesi europei, di una impossibile quadratura del cerchio
Cosa si puo' dire di preciso a proposito dell'esplosione del deposito di munizioni nella regione di Tver? Personale NATO era, presumibilmente, coinvolto?
E' probabile che personale NATO abbia almeno fornito informazioni di intelligence, come sempre accade nel caso delle operazioni ucraine in territorio russo. Non è chiarissimo da dove siano partiti i droni "ucraini". Ma un'altra cosa interessante è che, secondo alcune fonti, il deposito ospitava soprattutto vecchie armi di epoca sovietica, non missili di ultima generazione. Ed è la ragione per cui sarebbe stato relativamente sguarnito in termini di difese aeree. Secondo questa tesi, il danno subito dai russi non sarebbe particolarmente ingente ai fini del conflitto.
And that is precisely why it was targeted. All the facts point to the following:
The actual relevant arsenals which are directly involved in the SMO are much more heavily guarded by air defense and Ukraine has not been able to penetrate them. For instance, this refers to areas around Engels which again was struck two days or so ago, with all drones repulsed by AD.
But just as we’ve seen Ukraine begin targeting very ‘out of the way’ sites, like in distant Murmansk, the Toropets strike appears to fit a pattern of Ukraine seeking big “PR” hits in lesser-protected backwater sites, where it knows it can penetrate the sparser Russian AD to make a big morale-boosting media splash. The Toropets site presented the perfect target because it had a giant warehouse network of old rotting Soviet conventional, unguided weaponry that they knew could create a big fireworks display for their Western masters. Thus, they threw everything they had into it, reportedly utilizing over a hundred of their newest, most advanced drones—which I’ll get to in a moment.
As you know, Ukraine has for a long time now been switching to a total hybrid PR war, after realizing they could not defeat Russia on the battlefield. We can’t blame them for that, that’s precisely what they should be doing—but let’s call a spade a spade. Thus, Ukraine’s current modus operandi is to seek obscure targets in the rear which can be sold to Western media and audiences as devastating hits on “strategic” Russian nodes. As I said, this is why they’ve been feverishly chasing odd distant sites like Murmansk, because all the critical sites actually involved in the SMO are too well protected and impervious to their drones. Example: the entire SMO is headquartered in Rostov, mere kilometers from Ukraine’s border. Why hasn’t Ukraine devastated it, slaughtering the entire Russian command, if their drones and missiles can so easily pierce Russia’s most ‘sensitive’ sites?
The answer is: it’s all deception and hand-waving. Ukraine relies on PR strikes, and so its modest drone force is used like a pack of hyenas desperately stalking some lone sheep trotting around the distant pasture to get a token kill.
That all being said, is it still a big, ugly strike with some nasty implications for Russia? Sure, the fact that Ukraine’s drone fleets are only growing in size, strength, sophistication, etc., means that this bodes poorly for Russia if it is not able to suppress or restrain Ukraine’s drone developments in some appreciable way.
Further, while the arsenal may not have direct implications for the SMO itself, it still is an important reserve for the new armies meant to be the bulwark against a potential NATO clash on the critical western flanks. Thus, having potentially crippled the arsenal, Ukraine may have done damage to Russia’s security against a future NATO clash.
The more NATO sees the forces arrayed against it weakening, the more they’re apt to lick their chops and feel emboldened to raise the temperature against Russia via further provocations. And we have seen just that occurring recently, which means this strike is still a significant and bad one, despite not having immediate ramifications for the Ukrainian conflict—but we all know this conflict is a mere proxy and appetizer for the real one that potentially awaits.
Cosa si puo' dire di preciso a proposito dell'esplosione del deposito di munizioni nella regione di Tver? Personale NATO era, presumibilmente, coinvolto?
E' probabile che personale NATO abbia almeno fornito informazioni di intelligence, come sempre accade nel caso delle operazioni ucraine in territorio russo. Non è chiarissimo da dove siano partiti i droni "ucraini". Ma un'altra cosa interessante è che, secondo alcune fonti, il deposito ospitava soprattutto vecchie armi di epoca sovietica, non missili di ultima generazione. Ed è la ragione per cui sarebbe stato relativamente sguarnito in termini di difese aeree. Secondo questa tesi, il danno subito dai russi non sarebbe particolarmente ingente ai fini del conflitto.
Simplicius The Thinker ha fatto un'analisi a riguardo nel suo ultimo articolo, ma è a pagamento: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/ukraine-strikes-russias-107th-arsenal
Qui un estratto:
Reason for Attack
And that is precisely why it was targeted. All the facts point to the following:
The actual relevant arsenals which are directly involved in the SMO are much more heavily guarded by air defense and Ukraine has not been able to penetrate them. For instance, this refers to areas around Engels which again was struck two days or so ago, with all drones repulsed by AD.
But just as we’ve seen Ukraine begin targeting very ‘out of the way’ sites, like in distant Murmansk, the Toropets strike appears to fit a pattern of Ukraine seeking big “PR” hits in lesser-protected backwater sites, where it knows it can penetrate the sparser Russian AD to make a big morale-boosting media splash. The Toropets site presented the perfect target because it had a giant warehouse network of old rotting Soviet conventional, unguided weaponry that they knew could create a big fireworks display for their Western masters. Thus, they threw everything they had into it, reportedly utilizing over a hundred of their newest, most advanced drones—which I’ll get to in a moment.
As you know, Ukraine has for a long time now been switching to a total hybrid PR war, after realizing they could not defeat Russia on the battlefield. We can’t blame them for that, that’s precisely what they should be doing—but let’s call a spade a spade. Thus, Ukraine’s current modus operandi is to seek obscure targets in the rear which can be sold to Western media and audiences as devastating hits on “strategic” Russian nodes. As I said, this is why they’ve been feverishly chasing odd distant sites like Murmansk, because all the critical sites actually involved in the SMO are too well protected and impervious to their drones. Example: the entire SMO is headquartered in Rostov, mere kilometers from Ukraine’s border. Why hasn’t Ukraine devastated it, slaughtering the entire Russian command, if their drones and missiles can so easily pierce Russia’s most ‘sensitive’ sites?
The answer is: it’s all deception and hand-waving. Ukraine relies on PR strikes, and so its modest drone force is used like a pack of hyenas desperately stalking some lone sheep trotting around the distant pasture to get a token kill.
That all being said, is it still a big, ugly strike with some nasty implications for Russia? Sure, the fact that Ukraine’s drone fleets are only growing in size, strength, sophistication, etc., means that this bodes poorly for Russia if it is not able to suppress or restrain Ukraine’s drone developments in some appreciable way.
Further, while the arsenal may not have direct implications for the SMO itself, it still is an important reserve for the new armies meant to be the bulwark against a potential NATO clash on the critical western flanks. Thus, having potentially crippled the arsenal, Ukraine may have done damage to Russia’s security against a future NATO clash.
The more NATO sees the forces arrayed against it weakening, the more they’re apt to lick their chops and feel emboldened to raise the temperature against Russia via further provocations. And we have seen just that occurring recently, which means this strike is still a significant and bad one, despite not having immediate ramifications for the Ukrainian conflict—but we all know this conflict is a mere proxy and appetizer for the real one that potentially awaits.