RU's military not as damaged by attack as some pro-UA commentators suggest

4 prmph 6 6/3/2025, 5:36:31 PM nationalinterest.org ↗

Comments (6)

duxup · 1d ago
>nowhere near as damaged by the attack as some pro-Ukraine commentators are suggesting

These kind of meta conversation taglines always make me skeptical of an article.

Not as damaged as what? vs someone somewhere on the internet who overstated things? I'm sure someone on the internet overstates just about anything.

So I go on and read the article and yup, nothing that really indicates more or less damage than I've already seen.

Bender · 1d ago
Archive [1]

[1] - https://archive.is/tQkQt

bigyabai · 1d ago
...they were catastrophic.

What's key to understanding this attack in particular is that Ukraine isn't really hobbling a key Russian asset. They're damaging extremely expensive, entirely irreplaceable strategic systems that are typically used to saber-rattle the last stages of a war. If push comes to shove, Russia has fewer assets to threaten their adversaries with.

If you understand the difference between tactical integrity and strategic integrity, it's pretty easy to gauge the relative impact of this attack.

rainworld · 1d ago
Not even the ability to pepper Ukraine with Kalibrs was hobbled.

You raise a good point, though. Why is the West, via its proxy, attacking (not for the first time, it must be said) a part of what it recognizes as Russia’s nuclear strategic assets? Sounds highly reckless and dangerous! What happened to winning?

lancekey · 2h ago
Some of the aircraft were loaded with cruise missiles - they were about to pepper Ukraine and then … couldn’t.
drysine · 1d ago
>Russia has fewer assets to threaten their adversaries with

Russia is producing new ballistic missile submarines approximately one per year.