By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On March 20th, a Ukrainian drone strike on the Engels airbase destroyed 96 Kh-101 cruise missiles, representing two months of production and costing Russia an estimated $960 million. This attack, the third on Engels in ten weeks, targeted missiles intended for use against Ukrainian cities. While the damage inflicted is substantial, the long-term military effectiveness of these deep strikes remains questionable, with analysis suggesting many previous attacks on munitions depots had limited impact. Ukraine’s current reliance on its own deep-strike arsenal, while impressive, may not be sufficient for sustained attacks on key Russian infrastructure.
Read the original article here
The triple tap raid on the Engels bomber base, resulting in an estimated $960 million in damages to Russia, highlights the escalating costs of the conflict. This figure, however, is arguably just the tip of the iceberg. The true cost extends far beyond monetary losses.
The significant financial impact on Russia is undeniable. The $960 million price tag encompasses not only the destruction of aircraft and infrastructure but also the considerable expenses involved in repairs and replacements. This enormous sum represents a substantial drain on Russia’s already strained resources, forcing them to divert funds from other essential areas.
Beyond the immediate financial impact, the attacks on Engels have severely disrupted Russia’s strategic bombing capabilities. The base’s temporary shutdown has forced Russia to rely on alternative airfields, leading to longer flight times, increased fuel consumption, and a reduced payload capacity for their bombers. This logistical setback directly impacts Russia’s offensive capabilities, potentially hindering their war efforts and costing them strategically.
The attacks have also raised questions about the effectiveness of Russia’s air defenses. The success of the Ukrainian strikes suggests vulnerabilities in Russia’s defensive systems, prompting questions regarding their readiness and capabilities. The necessity to invest further in upgrading and improving these systems adds another layer of unforeseen costs for Russia.
Interestingly, the high cost of the missiles used in the strikes has been a recurring topic. Some commenters have expressed disbelief at the millions spent on each missile, questioning the wisdom of such expenditure, especially considering the devastating impact on civilian infrastructure witnessed in this conflict. This underscores the wider human cost, both in terms of lost lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
While some see the financial impact as the primary focus, others emphasize the strategic implications. The continued targeting of Engels serves a symbolic purpose, undermining Russia’s military strength and signaling Ukraine’s resolve. The repeated attacks also create a psychological impact, fostering a sense of vulnerability and uncertainty within the Russian military.
The debate over whether more frequent attacks with more powerful weapons would yield greater long-term damage illustrates the complexities of strategic decision-making during wartime. While such a strategy might seem appealing, it necessitates a careful consideration of the risks involved and the potential for escalating the conflict.
Despite the enormous financial losses, some argue that the damage is worth it for Ukraine’s long-term strategic goals. The disruption to Russia’s air capabilities and the psychological impact are seen as significant achievements that outweigh the substantial investment of resources. The argument centers around the idea that such strategic blows are a critical part of achieving a favorable outcome to the war.
The cost of the conflict is not limited to monetary value; it encompasses incalculable human suffering and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The significant investment in weaponry on both sides and the potential for long-term societal impact cannot be ignored.
The situation underscores the high stakes of the conflict and the potential for it to create lasting and far-reaching implications for all involved. The continued high level of expenditure on the war effort on both sides raises fundamental questions about the efficacy and wisdom of continued military action, and the need to seek a peaceful resolution. The human cost and societal implications continue to dwarf the purely financial calculations.