By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In April 2020, Ukraine’s navy successfully used a modified R-360 Neptune anti-ship missile in a long-range strike against a Russian factory in Bryansk, targeting a facility specializing in electrical parts for military and aerospace components. The strike, conducted over a range of 240 km, suggests the use of the “Long Neptune” version, initially designed for naval targets but modified to hit land targets with an extended range. This follows a previous strike on an oil refinery in March and reflects Ukraine’s efforts to expand its homegrown long-range arsenal, reducing reliance on Western-provided weapons. The Neptune missile, based on the Soviet Kh-35 and manufactured by Luch Design Bureau, was revealed to have a significantly extended range compared to its original capabilities.
Read the original article here
Ukraine said its modified Neptune naval missile was used to blast a Russian factory 150 miles away, and that’s the story we’re diving into today. It’s pretty cool, right? This isn’t just some random shot; it’s a sign of Ukraine’s growing ability to strike back, and with their own homegrown weapons. Plus, 241 kilometers is a significant distance – that’s like hitting a target that’s the same distance as about 2.84 million McDonald’s cheeseburgers laid end to end! Okay, maybe that’s not the most accurate measure, but it definitely puts the distance in perspective.
What makes this even more interesting is the fact that these are Ukraine-made munitions. That means they have the freedom to fire at their discretion. This is the kind of capability that can really make a difference in the long haul. Russia, on the other hand, is likely seeing things only get more complicated. One can’t help but think about how impactful a hit like this could be, adding another layer of pressure and uncertainty to the situation. It’s a sign that Ukraine is not just surviving, but evolving its defensive and offensive capabilities, and that definitely has the potential to shift the dynamics.
Of course, anytime you talk about military actions, there are going to be complexities. Some discussions sometimes pivot into the economics of the conflict, and the energy landscape. Some comments highlight the role of natural gas and its importance to Russia’s economy. Russia produces a massive amount of natural gas each year, and the country relies heavily on the revenue it generates. Now, while I can’t dive deep into the economic details of this war right now, the point is valid: a lot of Russia’s leverage comes from being a major energy provider, particularly for Europe.
The conversation also touches on the rise of renewable energy sources like solar power. It’s a counterpoint to the natural gas reliance. Solar power, in essence, could diminish Russia’s financial leverage. The discussion even makes some quick, back-of-the-envelope comparisons to illustrate the potential. A 2-watt solar panel generating a significant amount of energy over a year compared to the energy contained in a cubic meter of natural gas is a point of interest here.
However, the numbers can be a little tricky. The relationship between solar power output and natural gas equivalents isn’t always so straightforward. In the real world, there are factors like sunlight hours, the efficiency of solar panels, and even the specifics of how energy is used to consider. One comment points out that solar panel to gas equivalence calculation can be off by one order of magnitude and brings into focus the inherent limitations of electricity, like how much is needed for high-temperature industrial processes.
The comments also acknowledge that we aren’t going to switch everything over to electricity overnight, but the long-term trend is pretty clear. The global investment in solar power is increasing by an incredible amount every two years, in effect, lessening reliance on traditional sources like gas. This isn’t just about politics; it’s also about economics. If Russia’s primary source of income loses its market share, they could get a serious squeeze in their finances.
The potential shift in energy sources carries significant weight. There was a strong sentiment when the conflict started, that Europe was too dependent on Russian natural gas. The comments emphasize that Europe has shown it can cope and has begun a push toward renewables. However, it’s going to be a long process and will require significant investment to transition towards a fully electric system. The main point is this; a significant technological shift is underway that will require time to see its full influence on global power dynamics.
In a nutshell, the main takeaway here is: Ukraine’s successful use of a modified Neptune missile to strike a Russian factory 150 miles away signals a notable development in the war. While the focus remains on the military actions, the conversations inevitably veer toward the economic impacts and the role of renewable energy in shaping the future.