📢 I published an op-ed with The Spectator on the anticipated effectiveness of ATACMS strikes on Russian soil and potential Russian responses.
It's paywalled, but I share my argument in the thread below 👇
1/4
It's paywalled, but I share my argument in the thread below 👇
1/4
Comments
Although ATACMS has proven effective, Russia has shown a capability to intercept these missiles. This requires Ukraine to deploy large numbers of missiles in strike packages to ensure hits on aimpoints.
2/4
Dealing with a combined ballistic & cruise missile threat greatly complicates missile defense efforts, and would force Russia to spread out its missile defense assets more widely.
3/4
4/4
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-effective-will-ukraines-atacms-be/
What do you mean by “in response” if it was “going to occur regardless” ?
That they will *present it* as a response ?
Another question, do we have some more clarity whether their use is limited to the Kursk oblast or not ?
2. US officials said ATACMS would "primarily" be used to support Kursk operations. But this is kept vague, so there is probably scope.
do you know one single Western country who has an iron dome for herself?🤔
Combined ballistic / cruise / drone and other assets is going to be just as effective at longer ranges as it has been already at shorter ranges.
rU is below 50% time to make them hurt.
That's doable if you have deep reserves, but Ukraine doesn't have the luxury.
I agree there is a solution, but that requires additional policy changes.
rU, as you pointed out, struggles dealing mixed path mixed velocity attacks, seems logical the more diverse you make those the more effective they will become.
Reversing the policy on blackhawks would help.