By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Russian drone mistakenly attacked a North Korean-made surface-to-air missile (SAM) system in Russian service, initially misidentified as a Western radar system. The incident, which occurred in Kursk Oblast, was captured on video and publicized through Russian military channels. The North Korean SAM system, a known analog of Russia’s Tor system, was first seen publicly in 2020. This friendly fire incident highlights the increasing use of North Korean military equipment by Russia in the ongoing conflict.
Read the original article here
The incident of Russians destroying their own North Korean-made surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, initially misidentified as Western radar, highlights a fascinating blend of incompetence, misidentification, and potentially deliberate actions cloaked in convenient explanations. The sheer audacity of blaming Western technology for a malfunctioning North Korean system speaks volumes about the current state of affairs.
The immediate assumption that the system was of Western origin, even by those supposedly responsible for its operation, suggests a profound lack of familiarity with their own equipment. This isn’t a simple case of misidentification in the heat of battle; it implies a systemic ignorance concerning the capabilities and limitations of their allies’ military technology. Perhaps there’s a deep-seated desire to avoid acknowledging the inferior quality of North Korean military hardware, a problem potentially exacerbated by the inherent difficulties of maintaining and operating unfamiliar weapons systems.
This incident isn’t entirely unprecedented. Mistaken identity in warfare, leading to friendly fire, unfortunately happens across all militaries and throughout history. Even advanced nations with sophisticated technology and extensive training have experienced such tragedies. The US military, for example, has a documented history of friendly fire incidents, ranging from accidental shootings to mistaken targeting, resulting in significant losses. However, the scale of this particular event and the subsequent explanation offered appear particularly egregious.
The possibility of deliberate destruction also enters the equation. The claim that it was a Western radar system could be a way to conceal a more inconvenient truth: the failure of a crucial piece of military equipment acquired from an untrustworthy source. This destruction might have served as a way to cover up a potential weakness in their defenses, or even a way to eliminate evidence of a failed transaction. The narrative created avoids any admission of relying on, and failing with, a North Korean system.
Furthermore, the possibility of intentional misidentification shouldn’t be entirely dismissed. Active radar systems, whether friendly or hostile, present a significant challenge in the modern battlefield. They can trigger automated responses from neighboring units if identification isn’t confirmed correctly. Such a scenario could easily lead to a misinterpretation that a friendly system was, in fact, an enemy radar.
The comical nature of the situation, despite its potentially severe consequences, is undeniable. The sheer level of incompetence portrayed in this incident is striking, particularly considering the gravity of the situation. Attributing this to simple “stupidity” is a simplification, but the evident lack of training, familiarity, and possibly even basic competence is remarkable. The inherent risks of relying on unreliable sources for crucial military technology are glaringly obvious in this instance.
The incident sheds light on several systemic issues, ranging from poor training and equipment familiarity to the potential cover-up of larger systemic problems within the Russian military. It underscores the severe consequences of making crucial military decisions based on flawed assumptions and inadequate knowledge.
Ultimately, this incident is a potent illustration of the dangers of relying on untested and unreliable technology, the consequences of insufficient training, and the risks of allowing political considerations to overrule sound military judgment. It raises questions about the effectiveness of the Russian military’s acquisition process and its ability to properly assess and utilize foreign-supplied equipment. While friendly fire is tragically common in warfare, this incident suggests a depth of ineptitude exceeding mere error, prompting further investigation into the larger implications of this “friendly fire” incident. The incident raises more questions than it answers, and suggests a deeper dysfunction within the Russian military than a simple case of mistaken identity.