By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a major drone attack on Moscow, a Russian air defense missile reportedly missed its target, a Ukrainian drone, and struck a fuel storage tank at the Kapotnya oil refinery, causing an explosion captured on video. This incident occurred amidst Ukraine’s largest reported drone strike on the capital, with 194 drones allegedly shot down. The Moscow Oil Refinery, a key target, sustained damage to processing units and storage tanks, and drone debris also caused damage and fires in other areas.
Read the original article here
It appears Russia’s air defense systems might be experiencing some significant growing pains, to put it mildly, following a recent incident at a Moscow refinery. Reports suggest that a Russian air defense missile, intended to intercept an incoming Ukrainian drone, inadvertently struck the refinery itself, causing a rather spectacular explosion. This leaves Russian officials in a rather awkward position, and frankly, it’s a scenario ripe for commentary.
One can only imagine the internal discussions within Russia’s propaganda machine. Are they going to try and spin this as a Ukrainian success, attributing blame for something they themselves apparently caused? Or will they have to admit their own equipment malfunctioned, a rather embarrassing admission for a military claiming to be highly advanced? Either way, the visual of Russian forces inadvertently causing damage to their own infrastructure is, shall we say, noteworthy.
There are even reports, and videos circulating, of Russian soldiers firing shoulder-fired missiles from roadways, with some suggesting the very missile that hit the refinery might have been involved. The footage reportedly shows a heat-seeking projectile being launched, seemingly in the vicinity of the burning refinery, and then, well, hitting it. If this is accurate, it paints a picture of a missile that perhaps wasn’t quite as precise as intended, especially when operating in proximity to a large, heat-generating facility like an oil refinery.
This situation begs the question of Russia’s strategy, or perhaps, lack thereof. It’s almost as if they’re playing a twisted game of “stop hitting yourself.” The logic seems to be that if Russia’s own air defenses are capable of destroying the very targets Ukraine is attempting to hit, then Ukraine can save itself the trouble and the drones. It’s a rather self-defeating approach, isn’t it? Launching a heat-seeking missile near a facility that is, by its very nature, hot and potentially burning, seems like a recipe for disaster.
The outcome, according to the video evidence, appears to be a Russian air defense rocket missing its intended drone target and instead impacting an oil storage facility, leading to a dramatic explosion. One can’t help but recall the classic scenario of being so focused on an enemy that you overlook the immediate surroundings. It’s reminiscent of the “Sameer, you’re breaking the car” analogy, where the action taken to prevent one problem inadvertently creates another, often worse, one.
The idea of Russia’s air defenses being “drunk” or “rolling a nat 1” in terms of their targeting success is a recurring sentiment. It’s as if the missile itself developed a peculiar sense of recognition for its own country’s assets. This was precisely the scenario that no one, certainly not Ukraine, wanted to see happen, but for Russia, it seems to be an unfortunate reality. The drone, in this instance, effectively got a “2-for-1” deal, as the Russian defensive action inadvertently contributed to the disruption.
The discussion also touches upon the potential for defective missiles or some sort of advanced jamming technology employed by Ukraine that could be interfering with these launchers. The thought of launching a heat-seeking missile adjacent to a facility that is already radiating significant heat, especially after an initial incident, is indeed a curious tactical choice. It’s a spectacular own goal, a testament to what some perceive as a lack of reason, accuracy, or quality in Russian military equipment, especially when compared to the perceived standards of their adversaries.
Further analysis suggests that some of these missiles require radar targeting for precise guidance. However, if the Ukrainian drone was too close for a proper lock, the missile might have been fired in a less guided mode. In such a situation, the missile could, as it apparently did, latch onto a nearby heat source – in this case, the oil storage tank. This raises an interesting point about the state of the fuel tanks themselves. If the tank was empty, the explosion would have been solely from the missile warhead. The fact that the lid blew off implies the explosion was contained within an empty tank, possibly indicating that Russia is facing oil shortages, or at least, that this particular tank was depleted.
The incident, as captured on video, is seen by many as far from a mere “alleged” event. It’s viewed as a clear indication of Russia’s struggles and missteps. The narrative being built is one of Russia inadvertently bombing itself, a humorous yet concerning display of what some describe as “Catch-22” military operations, or perhaps, a swift hand from “Lady Karma.”
Some have speculated about the specifics of the missile guidance, suggesting that in the absence of a clear radar lock on the drone, the missile might have defaulted to seeking the strongest heat signature available. This, of course, leads to the catastrophic outcome of striking a refinery. It’s a dramatic illustration of how a seemingly minor tactical decision, or a malfunction, can have significant consequences. The notion of the refinery being hit multiple times, if true, further suggests a systemic issue with its defense.
The concept of Russia essentially attacking its own assets raises questions about their strategic planning and execution. It’s a stark contrast to the calculated strategies often attributed to Sun Tzu, where the enemy is defeated through their own actions, but here, the enemy seems to be Russia’s own internal operational failures. The resulting explosion, described as spectacular, serves as a dramatic visual confirmation of this perceived self-inflicted wound.