Pearl clutching about the Russian ICBM strike on Dnipro

20241124

The American media have been all atwitter about the use of the Oreshnik (Nut Tree) ICBM against Ukraine. The Tucker Carlson wing continues to claim that we are on the brink of a nuclear war. That Ukraine’s use of the Storm Shadow missiles went over the brink.

My view is that this is all incremental. The chief factor is that Putin is incrementally running out of alternatives. Let me sketch out my view.

This is not the first use of Storm Shadows. They were used in Crimea, which Russia insists is every bit as Russian as Kursk.

The Storm Shadow has a range of 300 km, not enough to reach Moscow. Ukraine’s first use of the missiles in Kursk did not exploit its maximum range. My reading is that the Storm Shadow is a more effective bunker buster than the HIMARS systems that have been in use for quite a while now. They were used against a deeply dug in Russian headquarters in Kursk.

Ukraine is effectively defending against Russian efforts to push it out of Kursk before the change in American administration. Ukraine’s successful strategy was to build strong defensive fortifications well south of the Seym River and isolate the Russian troops by blowing up the bridges.

We Americans are fortunate to be able to watch analysis by both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian bloggers by watching both YouTube and Rumble. I find YouTube more credible on this particular instance. Throughout this war Russia has displayed systematic weaknesses that characterized their military even in czarist times:

1. Rigid hierarchical control from Moscow – in this case Putin declaring the necessity of pushing Ukraine out of Kursk whether or not it is feasible or a good use of resources.

2. Deception within Russian ranks. Russian commanders cannot afford to tell their superiors the truth, especially when plans dictated by those superiors turn out not to work. The result is an inability to make good use of manpower and matériel because the people making the plans do not know the situation on the ground.

3. Inexperience. Russia has to defend Kursk largely with the forces that were already in that part of Russia in August. They are untrained and inexperienced, and the equipment they had is largely obsolete.

4. Logistical problems. Ukraine has played hob with the railroads and roads that would be needed to move men and equipment into Kursk.

5. Lack of modern equipment. Russia’s plant and equipment are vastly inadequate to replace destroyed tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces and the like. They are increasingly using Cold War era weaponry.

6. Meat wave tactics. Russia has historically been careless with the use of manpower. Now, with a shortage of mechanized and trained soldiers, they are even more frequently sending inadequately prepared and armed troops into battle against Ukraine.

This has been a war of attrition since the beginning. Although Ukraine has certainly suffered significant losses, the ratio at which Russia is losing resources appears to be rising. YouTube talks about these issues all the time. The Rumble commentators generally ignore them. In my opinion they are not to be ignored.

Russia pesters us nightly with Iranian made Shahid drones. These fly at the speed of a Piper cub and are reasonably vulnerable to Ukraine’s air defenses. Nonetheless, some always get through. Their warheads are enough to blow out a few apartments in a high-rise.

We know Russia is running out of their ground, sea and air launched guided missiles. These are not ballistic – they do not leave the atmosphere. Most are not that fast, just over the speed of sound, although the “dagger” claims to be several times the speed of sound. The Patriot system has been fairly effective at intercepting them, though some always seem to get through.

An ICBM is a different story. Even the intermediate range ICBM is a huge, costly truck mobile affair. It’s strategy is different. An ICBM shoots in an arc up past the atmosphere. Upon reentry it descends at 10 or more times the speed of sound and disburses multiple warheads. The warheads are intended to be nuclear, and are independently targeted.

ICBMs require an entirely different type of defense. Large as they are, and immobile, their launch can be unmistakably identified from space by satellites. The defense strategy is to hit them on the way up or in their apogee, before the multiple warheads separate.

The United States developed the Ageis missile defense system several decades ago to deter this threat. They did not give it to Ukraine because Russia was not using ICBMs. However, United States had long planned to establish Aegis bases in Poland. One was ready to go this month in response to Russia’s use of the Orekhnik. It has been put in use.

Russia almost immediately threatened that it would be a top priority target and destroyed very quickly. I do not consider that a credible threat. United States obviously knows how to defend a fixed site missile defense system. 

Why would Russia continue to use the Orekhnik?  Each missile has to cost many millions of dollars. That would be cost-effective if it carried a nuclear warhead. With just ordinary TNT, it is kind of like launching blow darts with a bazooka. The amount of TNT it delivers is simply not that great, as evidenced by the relatively minor damage in Dnipro.  They cannot have that many in their arsenal, and this is a stupid way to use them. Stupidity, of course, is no defense. Russia has been doing lots of stupid things for three years. Had they not they would have occupied Ukraine long ago.

My bottom line is that this is much ado about nothing. This is an incremental change in weaponry, tactics, and everything else. And if you read and believe the YouTube blogs, especially recently The Russian Dude, you will conclude that Russia is simply short on alternatives.

That’s a briefly written, unedited comment from Kiev before taking the girls out for a Sunday outing.

Graham