By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia is reportedly prioritizing ballistic missiles in its ongoing conflict with Ukraine, with a significant strike on Kyiv on the night of July 18-19, involving over 40 missiles. This reliance on ballistic weapons is seen as a key factor in President Putin’s continued belief in the war. In response, Ukraine’s leadership is urging accelerated delivery of agreed-upon aid packages from both European partners and the United States to counter this evolving threat.
Read the original article here
It seems that President Zelenskyy’s perspective on why Putin persists in his war effort is deeply rooted in the perceived effectiveness and continued reliance on ballistic missiles. From this viewpoint, these weapons, despite their immense cost, represent a tangible capability that fuels Putin’s conviction.
The notion that ballistic missiles are central to Putin’s belief in his war effort hinges on the idea that they are difficult to counter and represent a significant threat. While drones are recognized for their cost-effectiveness and ability to inflict damage, ballistic missiles are seen as a different category of weapon, capable of causing far greater devastation to infrastructure.
The discussion points to the extreme difficulty and expense involved in intercepting ballistic missiles. Unlike drones, which might be intercepted with high success rates, ballistic missiles travel at incredible speeds, making them a formidable challenge for air defense systems. The cost of interceptor missiles, like the Patriot system, is astronomically high, and their manufacturing process is lengthy and complex, leading to limited availability.
This scarcity of interceptors, coupled with the high cost, contributes to Ukraine’s relatively low interception rate for ballistic missiles, hovering around 40-50%, a stark contrast to their success against drones and cruise missiles. There are instances where Ukraine has been unable to intercept any incoming ballistic missiles during barrages due to insufficient interceptor stocks.
The argument is made that Russia is increasingly betting on ballistic missile attacks precisely because Ukraine is not receiving enough resources to adequately defend against them. This suggests a strategic calculation by Russia, aiming to overwhelm Ukraine’s limited defensive capabilities with these powerful, albeit expensive, weapons.
However, there’s a counter-narrative that questions the overall efficiency of ballistic missiles, especially when compared to the widespread damage that can be inflicted by cheaper drone technology. The idea is that while ballistic missiles are powerful, their high cost might not always translate into proportional strategic gains, particularly when compared to the widespread disruption caused by drone swarms.
Despite the potential for drones to inflict significant damage, ballistic missiles are still considered essential for striking hardened targets, a capability that current drones may not possess. The extensive range of ballistic missiles also sets them apart from many drone systems.
The strategic use of ballistic missiles is framed as state terrorism, primarily aimed at imposing a persistent civilian cost on protracted conventional warfare. This indiscriminate targeting of civilian populations is seen as a tactic to pressure opposing sides into capitulation, influencing regional stability and international trade.
The sheer scale of Russia is mentioned as a factor that makes it impossible to defend every inch of its territory, which contributes to the effectiveness of Ukraine’s drone strikes against energy-related infrastructure that Russia has not previously needed to heavily defend.
The economic impact of ballistic missiles is also considered. While they are expensive, the argument is made that they can deliver a greater amount of damage than current Ukrainian drones. The effectiveness of a weapon is not solely determined by its cost, but by its ability to achieve strategic objectives.
The role of certain political factions, specifically mentioning the GOP and Trump, is brought into the discussion as a factor influencing the supply of critical defense systems like Patriot missiles to Ukraine. The alleged refusal to supply these interceptors, despite repeated requests, is seen as directly impacting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attacks.
The potential for Ukraine to eventually develop its own ballistic missiles, such as the FP-7 and FP-9, is presented as a future strategic advantage. However, the current reality is a reliance on external support for missile defense.
The complexity of reversing engineer and producing advanced interceptor missiles like Patriots is highlighted, with estimates suggesting a multi-year timeline even if production were to begin today. This lengthy development cycle means Ukraine will remain reliant on existing supplies for a considerable period.
The notion that the US has largely stopped providing economic aid to Ukraine is mentioned, further emphasizing the importance of efficient weapon utilization and the need for self-sufficiency in defense production.
There’s also a pragmatic viewpoint suggesting that focusing on destroying the factories that produce Russian ballistic missiles might be a more cost-effective strategy than attempting to intercept them.
The debate also touches upon the idea that while intercepting ballistic missiles is extremely difficult, advancements in technology might offer new solutions. However, without these advancements, the current reliance on costly interceptors remains a significant hurdle.
The significant disparity in cost between losing a drone and attempting to intercept a ballistic missile is stark. The argument is made that losing a high percentage of drones is more economically viable than the continued expenditure of millions on interceptors for a lesser success rate against ballistic missiles.
The targeting of civilian areas by Russia with ballistic missiles is criticized as being less effective than targeting military objectives, essentially amounting to expensive terrorism. Effective use of ballistic missiles, it’s suggested, requires precise intelligence and targeting.
The historical context of technological adoption, like the machine gun, is used to illustrate that even revolutionary weapons take time to redefine warfare. This parallel suggests that while Ukraine may be working towards self-reliance in missile production, immediate solutions are still paramount.
The immense cost of ballistic missiles is contrasted with the potential for homemade drones to cripple Russia’s economy. This highlights a differing philosophy on how to wage war and achieve strategic objectives effectively.
The difficulty of intercepting ballistic missiles is repeatedly emphasized, with comparisons made to the limited number of ground-based ICBM interceptors the US possesses for its own defense. This underscores the scale of the challenge Ukraine faces.
The idea of Ukraine reverse-engineering and developing its own ballistic missile interceptor capabilities is considered a significant long-term goal, but the immediate need for external support is undeniable.
Ultimately, the core of Zelenskyy’s perceived belief is that as long as Putin has the capacity to launch ballistic missiles, and as long as these weapons remain difficult and expensive to intercept, he will continue to see a pathway to achieving his war aims. This reliance on a perceived superior, difficult-to-counter weapon system fuels his conviction, even in the face of mounting losses and international pressure.