By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian military intelligence operatives, specifically the “Prymary” special operations group, have executed precision drone strikes targeting several Russian air defense assets. These attacks, conducted in late January, successfully destroyed multiple radar systems and a rare Arctic-configured Tor-M2DT missile complex. The destruction of the Tor-M2DT, a system designed for extreme cold weather and capable of engaging numerous targets, is particularly significant given its recent relocation to the Ukrainian frontlines. These strikes represent a degradation of Russia’s air defense capabilities, building on previous operations in Crimea.
Read the original article here
The recent news of Ukrainian drones successfully taking out a Russian Tor-M2DT Arctic missile system, a vehicle supposedly built to withstand extreme cold down to -50°C, is quite telling. It really highlights how much Russia has poured its resources and focus into developing specialized systems for harsh environments, perhaps at the expense of more pressing defense needs. One can’t help but wonder how many of these specialized air defense systems Russia actually has positioned in remote, frigid areas like the far north, along its border with China, or in Kaliningrad. It seems like they’d have a substantial number in those strategic locations.
The fact that this particular Tor-M2DT was destroyed, especially considering its intended purpose and apparent resilience to the cold, raises some interesting questions. You know, it’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, building a missile system designed for frigid conditions when the missiles themselves generate significant heat during launch and operation? It seems like a misplaced priority. This system, in its core design, dates back to 1975. While it’s seen some upgrades, particularly in missile tracking capabilities, its fundamental architecture is half a century old.
This age and design philosophy clearly make it ill-suited for modern drone warfare. It’s simply not built to handle the evolving threats posed by swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles. We’ve heard reports that Russia had about twelve of these Tor-M2DT systems in 2020. One was already lost in Kherson back in 2023, and now this recent incident accounts for another. While exact production numbers are likely kept secret, it suggests that the operational fleet of this specific variant is becoming increasingly vulnerable, with perhaps just over ten remaining.
Estimates for the cost of each of these Tor-M2DT units are quite high, potentially ranging from $100 million to $250 million USD. Even if there are more than ten remaining, each loss represents a significant financial blow, especially for Russia’s current economic situation, making replacement a considerable challenge. This entire event really underscores the transformative impact drones are having on warfare. The development of new countermeasures and the training of personnel to operate and replace these lost systems present a substantial logistical and financial hurdle for Russia.
There’s a notable discrepancy in the estimated cost of these systems, with some figures suggesting $25 million per unit. Regardless of the precise price tag, each of these specialized vehicles represents a substantial investment that is now lost. The West, on the other hand, has been actively developing anti-drone technologies for a considerable time. The concept of using drone swarms to overwhelm defenses is not new, and it’s highly probable that Western nations advised Ukraine on employing modern drones, recognizing Russia’s lack of a robust counter-drone strategy.
The Western approach to military development often involves a rapid response to new offensive technologies by immediately focusing on defensive measures. For instance, when the UK developed sabot rounds, the US countered with ceramic armor. Subsequently, the UK developed depleted uranium shells to overcome that armor, leading to further US advancements. This creates a continuous cycle of innovation in both offensive and defensive capabilities. Russia, in contrast, has a significantly smaller economy, making it difficult to keep pace with this rapid technological evolution. Their strategy often involves fabricating narratives about advanced technology they can’t afford, which then fail to materialize, while relying on older Soviet-era equipment and hoping for numerical superiority to achieve victory.
It’s fascinating to consider the broader implications of this technological disparity. While Ukraine, not targeting civilians, can likely sustain its engineering and manufacturing base with skilled personnel, Russia faces a different reality. The $25 million figure per unit, while perhaps disputed, still points to the immense value of these lost systems. The West’s proactive development of countermeasures, including advanced drone capabilities, has clearly given Ukraine an edge. It’s worth noting that China has been showcasing its impressive drone swarm capabilities in public displays, featuring tens of thousands of drones operating in perfect synchronization. While these are currently for entertainment, the potential for weaponizing such technology with even small explosives is a sobering thought.
Russia’s strategic approach appears to have been rooted in exaggerating the capabilities of its military hardware to deter potential adversaries, while assuming that other nations operate under a similar pretense. The West, conversely, tends to undersell its technological advancements, operating under the assumption that others do the same. This leads to a situation where Russia might overestimate Western capabilities based on its own inflated self-assessments, while the West, potentially underestimating its own strengths, focuses on continuous improvement.
The Russian military doctrine has also incorporated novel hybrid tactics, such as utilizing tens of thousands of fishing vessels for mine-laying and other maritime operations. This blended approach presents a unique challenge that Western militaries may find difficult to counter effectively in the immediate term. In a related, albeit tangential, thought about military readiness, there are serious questions about the maintenance and operational status of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Given the substantial costs associated with maintaining such weapons, including the need for specialized fuels and periodic warhead refurbishment, it’s highly unlikely that such expenditures have been a priority for the Russian budget under Putin’s leadership. It’s more probable that these funds have been diverted for personal gain. With modern satellite surveillance capabilities, any significant movement of equipment between missile bases and maintenance facilities would be readily apparent. If such logistical activities ceased back in the late 1990s, it could offer a plausible explanation for why NATO appears less apprehensive about the threat of Russian nuclear weapons.