enigmatically2
Super Anarchist
Interesting
They aren't viable stock because they have no viable warhead. So either decoy or kinetic impact onlySo the argument is that on the one hand RUS has low stocks of missiles, yet it is using viable stock solely as decoys. It isn't obvious that this combination makes sense?
Or they are checking out the reliability of them in case they feel the need to send one with a warhead ?They aren't viable stock because they have no viable warhead. So either decoy or kinetic impact only
Maybe they don’t have loose heads sitting around to fit to them ?Fitting a non-nuclear warhead doesn't sound that hard an engineering problem?
Not the most difficult, though not as trivial as you might think. Clearly never thought it would be needed, and given the effectiveness of UKr AAW, they thought it worth sending in a decoy that couldn't be ignored so that others could get through. Hopefully it does mean RU missile stocks are lowFitting a non-nuclear warhead doesn't sound that hard an engineering problem?
I could offer an alternative hypothesis, more based on Russian incompetence and corruption - that the officer in charge of cruise missile inventory got an order to deliver 70 conventional cruise missiles to the airfield, which should have been easy based on his official inventory, but he only had like 68 immediately available (either due to corruption or maintenance failures or both) so he added in 2 nuclear ones with dummy warheads hoping no-one would notice or say anything.they thought it worth sending in a decoy that couldn't be ignored so that others could get through.
Even more interesting (if true) than the UK intelligence report is this Russian report. The only reason I could think of is that RU has run out of foreign currency.
Looks like WWI. GruesomeBakhmut v Passchendaele.
Grim footage coming out. RU having to relocate troops from Donetsk to Bakhmut so their losses must be horrendous and even winter gear won't last long in this. I believe UKR has three day rotations.
View attachment 555996
Freezing is quicker but in most cases easier to avoid.What kills you first, freezing or starvation?
To think this is the third, if not the fourth time, Ukrainians have suffered like this by the same perpetrator.After watching some recent videos from UKR about what life looks like for many millions of people (shock!) now trying to survive without basically anything (no running water, lights, heat, radio, internet, phone, etc, etc, etc) am investing a little more into self-sufficiency. All remaining lights will be LED and a generator, ordered today for starters. Canned food and other items will follow.
The situation over there is hellacious, in graphic detail. Living through a terrible winter stone-age style is a brutal proposition. What kills you first, freezing or starvation?
My father was at Passchendaele before and after his 16th birthday (he had lied about his age to join the Canadian army. He said the biggest risk most of the time was getting knocked off the wooden walkways when huge numbers of troops were rushing somewhere. He said guys drowned in the mud because they could not back on the walkways. Having trenches filled with water to the knees was the norm. He had issues with his feet for the next 75 years.Bakhmut v Passchendaele.
Grim footage coming out. RU having to relocate troops from Donetsk to Bakhmut so their losses must be horrendous and even winter gear won't last long in this. I believe UKR has three day rotations.
View attachment 555996
Have seen similar scenes from in the frontline UKR trenches too, it's bad on both sides.Freezing is quicker but in most cases easier to avoid.
For those in the trenches it's harder though. Lots of stories about Russian soldiers with hypothermia. Especially those in east where the water table is high, so trenches, even relatively shallow ones, full up with water