By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a claimed Ukrainian attack using US-provided ATACMS missiles, Russia vowed retaliation, citing the incident as a major escalation. The Russian Ministry of Defense reported intercepting eight ATACMS missiles and 72 UAVs, with attacks impacting regions including Leningrad and Kursk. This follows President Putin’s earlier threats to respond to ATACMS use with the new “Oreshnik” missile. Simultaneously, Russia launched a large-scale drone attack against Ukraine, resulting in damage and casualties.
Read the original article here
Russia’s recent claim of shooting down eight ATACMS missiles over Ukraine, and its subsequent vow of retaliation, has ignited a firestorm of speculation and cynicism. The very assertion itself is questionable; the idea of intercepting that many sophisticated missiles with stationary targets seems improbable, bordering on farcical. It’s reminiscent of past Russian pronouncements, often shrouded in disinformation and designed to portray strength where perhaps none exists.
The sheer scale of the claimed interception, coupled with Russia’s threat to retaliate with its “new” nuclear-capable ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, raises eyebrows. This missile, however, is far from new; it’s a repurposed system, using existing technology, that is notoriously inaccurate for conventional warheads. The media’s uncritical repetition of Putin’s threat underscores the power of Russian disinformation campaigns and the challenges faced in accurately reporting on the conflict.
One can’t help but wonder about the true effectiveness of Russia’s air defenses. The possibility exists that only a few ATACMS were actually intercepted, with the rest possibly hitting their intended targets or failing to reach the claimed number. Perhaps the initial claim of eight intercepted missiles serves more as a morale-boosting exercise than a factual representation of events. The sheer incongruity of the claim fuels skepticism, prompting the question: what other tactics are being used to downplay their losses and overstate their gains?
This incident highlights the ongoing information war. While Ukraine consistently provides evidence of Russian military losses and targeting of civilian infrastructure, this evidence often gets lost or downplayed in Western media coverage. This selective reporting, in contrast to the prominent portrayal of Russian pronouncements, creates a distorted narrative of the conflict. The disparity in coverage is puzzling and suggests a larger game is being played that transcends the factual events on the ground.
Russia’s threat of retaliation, given their history of actions, is particularly troubling. Their pattern of targeting civilian infrastructure – hospitals, apartment buildings – speaks volumes about their disregard for human life. The possibility that further such attacks will follow this incident is a frightening prospect. It raises the question of whether this is a deliberate escalation or just a manifestation of a state actor behaving erratically.
Adding to the complex picture are ongoing, more covert actions in the larger theater of war. Reports of Ukraine quietly shutting down oil pipelines to Europe, coupled with mentions of potential sanctions and other actions, suggest a broader strategy of attrition that extends beyond direct battlefield engagement. The implication is that a quiet, but decisive, battle is being fought on many fronts, some away from the public spotlight.
The whole situation underscores a sense of frustration with the ongoing conflict and its management. The fact that the major world powers are allowing Russia to maintain a certain level of impunity, even whilst employing extremely aggressive and often inhumane tactics, is frustrating. The question is whether this measured approach is a deliberate strategy or is simply born of a lack of decisive leadership in the face of a belligerent power willing to escalate. The strategic intent behind these measures, if any, remains unclear, fueling anxieties about the conflict’s trajectory.
In conclusion, Russia’s claim and subsequent threat are a worrying development. It fuels concerns about an escalation, given their consistent disregard for international norms and civilian casualties. The information disparity between Ukraine’s evidence and Western media coverage further complicates the situation. The question remains: is this a mere bluff, a desperate attempt to maintain the perception of power, or a genuine step towards an even more violent phase of the conflict? The lack of clear strategic direction from those who could intervene adds a further layer of anxiety to an already volatile situation. The entire episode begs the question of just how much longer this precarious balance can be maintained.