By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Utilizing open-source intelligence, analysts confirmed the first Ukrainian use of US-provided ATACMS missiles, specifically those with cluster warheads, targeting the Kursk-Vostochny airfield in Russia’s Kursk Oblast on November 24-25. Evidence included photographic proof of submunition detonation within the airfield’s aircraft parking area, corroborated by a Russian military blogger. The strike, reportedly involving eight missiles, followed President Biden’s authorization of ATACMS use against Russia. This represents a significant escalation in the conflict.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s recent use of Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) missiles against a Russian airfield marks a significant development in the ongoing conflict. The strike, reportedly targeting an S-400 air defense system installation, specifically aimed at a radar and two launchers undergoing repairs. This precise targeting suggests a high level of intelligence gathering and operational capability on the part of Ukrainian forces.
The initial reaction to the strike was one of surprise, given the reported lack of aircraft at the airfield. This seemingly unconventional target selection underscores the strategic value placed on disabling the S-400 system, a sophisticated piece of weaponry crucial to Russia’s air defense network. The fact that the radar, described as the “heart” of the system, was a primary objective highlights the long-term implications of this strike; S-400 radars require years to produce, making their loss a substantial blow to Russian capabilities.
The timing of the strike, although now occurring, also fueled some discussion. There was a sense among some commentators that this action should have happened months earlier, before Russia repositioned its aircraft out of the ATACMS’ range. This perspective suggests that the strike, while impactful, represents a missed opportunity for a more decisive earlier engagement.
Many commentators expressed a sense of satisfaction, seeing this event as a significant step forward in Ukraine’s ability to target and successfully strike within Russian territory. The use of ATACMS missiles, previously unavailable to the Ukrainians, signifies increased western support and a willingness to provide the weaponry needed for more assertive action. Yet, this success was not without its detractors.
Concerns were raised about the broader implications of the strike and the potential for escalation. Some viewed the reporting as sensationalized, questioning the need for such prominent coverage and speculating about the motivations behind such emphasis. The claim that Ukraine was using ATACMS missiles for the first time was also disputed; this discrepancy highlights the complexities of verifying information and the challenges involved in determining the validity of reports in a highly dynamic conflict zone.
There’s an argument that the very fact of the successful strike, and the apparent lack of dramatic escalation, could be a crucial element in changing perceptions among Western politicians. The more Ukraine demonstrates the effective use of these weapons without provoking devastating retaliatory strikes, the more likely it is that further support, including the continued supply of ATACMS missiles, will be forthcoming.
The debate extends beyond simple confirmation of the event itself. Speculation around the intent and impact of the strike abounded. Some suggested that the seemingly unusual target selection was intended to signal strength and project capability, aiming to influence future political decisions regarding the provision of advanced weaponry. The lack of overwhelming devastation following the strike, in contrast to some anxieties about the potential for massive escalation, may have an impact on perceptions of risk and restraint.
The narrative around this event became interwoven with the broader geopolitical context. The comments ranged from expressions of support for Ukraine to concerns about escalating the war into a larger global conflict. The debate over the extent of Western involvement, the financial costs of supporting Ukraine, and the very nature of the conflict all became intertwined with discussions about this specific strike. This highlighted that even an isolated military event is deeply embedded within the wider political and social landscape of the conflict.
Ultimately, while many remain skeptical and raise valid points regarding exaggeration, misinformation, and the long-term strategic implications, there’s a clear consensus among commentators that Ukraine’s use of ATACMS against a Russian airfield represents a significant development. It marks a demonstrable shift in the conflict’s dynamics, raising questions about future strategies and the potential trajectory of the war. The strike, whether over-reported or not, is a tangible event with potentially wide-ranging implications, triggering discussion and debate about escalation, political motivations, and the effectiveness of military actions.