GAC06 said:

---

How would that have changed anything? We know Russia has nukes.

---

It would have convinced me that their arsenal was ready to be employed on short notice. Had Putin detonated a small nuke on the tip of a missile and a large nuke I would not harbor the suspicions that the corruption throughout the Putin government that siphoned off billions of rubles meant for maintenance and periodic component testing of the nuclear arsenal into the pockets of corrupt bureaucrats, Generals, and Colonels. It would also have scared off smaller countries from sending F-16s and MBTs to Ukraine for fear of being moved up on a list of retaliatory targets.

The cost of a couple of warheads from the hundreds that Russia had at the end of the Cold War would be very small compared to the signal that it would send. As pointed out today, the ICBM launched at Dnipro was a waste of money in terms of the damage that it inflicted but it sent a message.

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

It's about all Russia can really do at this point. They've thrown every conventional weapon at Ukraine and are already striking deep in side Ukraine with foreign made arms.

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

It's not a proportional response, it's a scare tactic

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

No. It's calculated escalation, not meant to be proportional.

I am dying to know what Ukraine hit with all of those Storm Shadows; it seems to have put Putin in a bit of a rage

Russia's war economy has reached its limits. Time is not on Putin's side.

"On close examination of the evidence, however, the narrative that Russia has the resources to prevail if it so chooses does not hold. Signs that the official data masks severe economic strains brought on by both war and sanctions have become increasingly apparent. No matter how many workers it tries to shift to the defense industry, the Kremlin cannot expand production fast enough to replace weapons at the rate they are being lost on the battlefield."

Definitely worth taking the time to read: FUMES

Quote:

---

From a PURELY pragmatic standpoint we have nothing further to gain. The Russian military has come out of this incredibly weakened, it has exposed deficiencies in both our and their weapon systems, we've seen new drone tactics that were sorely needing real world exposure and seen what other countries and proxies will use against the US Navy in the near future. The United States has nothing else to gain here and a lot to risk/lose. Time to end this and reduce those risks.

---

I think these statements are somewhat contradictory. You acknowledge that Russia has been severely weakened militarily (and I will add economically), yet you also seem to indicate that we have nothing further to gain which is making the erroneous assumption that Russia cannot be further weakened by continued US military support. We already know that the Russians are scraping the bottom of the barrel, employing military equipment that's been in storage for decades and calling on North Korea to supplement it's severely depleted troop count. It's economy is headed for collapse. Why give them room to breathe? What we want to happen is for the iron grip Putin has on Russia to be eroded to the point of collapse and this won't happen without persistent resolve.

What do we truly have to risk/lose except allowing Russia to regroup and retool for a future incursion? Allow Ukraine to continue to deplete the Russian military and economy and thank God we don't have to sacrifice our own soldiers doing it. Only engage in peace talks if NATO membership can be guaranteed.

I don't think putin is anywhere near that point and this conflict probably won't impact that.

Surely closer to collapse than the Summer of 2023 Wagner coup attempt.

Just a reminder.

Russia is running out of stuff to shoot at Ukraine like they're running out of tanks.

People haven't paid anywhere near enough attention to this development⬇️

Russian cruise missile production is now like their tank production.

Russia is living off of Cold War stockpiles that are thinner & thinner as time goes on, & harder to resuscitate.

Attrition🧵
1/ https://t.co/MjnkuLkvnY

— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) November 19, 2024

@TrentTelenko Saluti, you can read it here: https://t.co/WG7Esv6eUV Enjoy :) 🤖

— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 19, 2024

74OA said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

It's not a proportional response, it's a scare tactic

---

Putin's expansion of the war by introducing third country troops to the frontlines in the form of 10,000 regular North Korean Army soldiers is perhaps the single biggest escalation since the original Russian invasion.

Characterizing the subsequent authorization of limited strikes into Russia using US supplied weapons as commensurate is laughable. If anything, it is a minimum response, just short of doing nothing at all.

According to Putin and his sympathizers, anything that helps Ukraine to defend itself is escalatory.

---

But our soldiers are on the ground pushing the button, Sir.

In addition to steadily gutting the Russian army, Putin's war is also causing Russia's naval modernization program to flounder.

"The Russian Navy, though still a serious concern for NATO, shows signs of decline reminiscent of the 1990s. Expensive reconstruction projects are struggling. Efforts to revive major warships, like the nuclear-powered battle cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, seem driven more by national pride than strategic value."

FLEET

Russia denying it was an ICBM. Saying it was a medium range ballistic missile.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Russia denying it was an ICBM. Saying it was a medium range ballistic missile.

---

Wouldn't that still violate some arms treaty somewhere?

Probably not. Even Iran launched ballistic missiles at American forces in Iraq after Solemani was killed.

Could be a violation of the INF (?) treaty - the one where we took Pershing II and GLCMs off the table.

74OA said:

---

According to Putin and his sympathizers, anything that helps Ukraine to defend itself is escalatory.

---

74OA is nails. ^

Slightly off topic, but I wonder if they've captured any NORKs?

There was a video several days ago on Redditt that was interviewing a badly wounded Nork. I think he was captured. He said his unit was used as fodder and he laid injured in a ditch for a few days before he was found.

NORAD/USSPACECOM is/was able to determine missile types from heat signature moments after launch with the DSP system. I guess its USSPACE Force now doing it. Point being, Pentagon knows what was launched.

Pentagon was also notified before it was launched

🚨Update: Massive explosions in Krasnodar, Russia after NATO backed Ukrainian forces strikes with US and UK assistant! pic.twitter.com/DdzjYEgTEf

— US Civil Defense News (@CaptCoronado) November 21, 2024

US pulled out of INF in 2018, ending it. Russia was essentially ignoring it anyway. We have since moved to field ground launched Tomahawk and other weapons that previously were not allowed.

PJYoung said:

---

🚨Update: Massive explosions in Krasnodar, Russia after NATO backed Ukrainian forces strikes with US and UK assistant! pic.twitter.com/DdzjYEgTEf

— US Civil Defense News (@CaptCoronado) November 21, 2024

---

this source seems a little sketchy; lets wait on confirmation from another source or two

Ya I looked on ISW and Osint and didn't see a thing

⚡️High-ranking North Korean general injured in Ukrainian strike on Kursk, WSJ reports.

A high-ranking North Korean general was wounded in a recent Ukrainian missile strike on Russia’s Kursk Oblast, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Nov. 21, citing undisclosed sources.…

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 22, 2024

⚡️US warned Ukraine, other allies ahead of Putin's 'experimental intermediate-range ballistic' attack.

"Russia likely possesses only a handful of these experimental missiles," a U.S. official told the Kyiv Independent. https://t.co/nRsxx7VQbx

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 22, 2024

PJYoung said:

---

🚨Update: Massive explosions in Krasnodar, Russia after NATO backed Ukrainian forces strikes with US and UK assistant! pic.twitter.com/DdzjYEgTEf

— US Civil Defense News (@CaptCoronado) November 21, 2024

---

Pretty sure that's a Russian bot account.

GAC06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

It's not a proportional response, it's a scare tactic

---

Scare tactic for sure and fairly effective for the weaker west but I think the main goal honestly is to build as much leverage as he can when he is finally forced to the to table for talks. The nuclear stick about all he has left.

I figure the main points will start at freeze the lines at where they are at and wherever you are standing, you now own. But the sticking point for Russia will be Kursk. As of now, they will need to either negotiate for it, or threaten for it. Or threaten to get it back before the talks even begin. And we all know Putin's favorite tactic... Just my shot in the dark for now though.

Eliminatus said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

First ever use of an ICBM is supposed to be a proportional response to US giving permission to Ukraine to use longer range (but not intercontinental range) for strikes deeper inside Russia?

---

It's not a proportional response, it's a scare tactic

---

Scare tactic for sure and fairly effective for the weaker west but I think the main goal honestly is to build as much leverage as he can when he is finally forced to the to table for talks. The nuclear stick about all he has left.

I figure the main points will start at freeze the lines at where they are at and wherever you are standing, you now own. But the sticking point for Russia will be Kursk. As of now, they will need to either negotiate for it, or threaten for it. Or threaten to get it back before the talks even begin. And we all know Putin's favorite tactic... Just my shot in the dark for now though.

---

Kursk is shrinking very slowly day by day. They have fielded a newly formed army group (with their Nork friends helping out) to retake that salient. I am afraid by inauguration time there won't be much territory to swap unless the Uke's can create some very strong defensive positions and use those AP mines effectively. Uke are going to have to give up Donbas and Luhansk without a doubt. Maybe they can get some territory north of Karkhov back in a settlement.

Teslag said:

---

Pentagon was also notified before it was launched

---

Putin maybe be an *******, but he's not suicidal.

He knew launching this could have been looked at as a launch towards a NATO country when it first took off. You don't know the actual trajectory at that time.

He wanted to make sure there wasn't a massive retaliatory strike in response.

Background on the RS-26 missile.

"First off, it's worth recalling that the RS-26 is widely viewed as an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), a class of weapon that has a range of somewhere between approximately 1,860 and 3,410 miles based on the ranges it achieved in tests. However, Russia has previously described it as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a type of weapon that can hit targets at more than around 3,410 miles."

IRBM

Latest campaign assessment from ISW. As always, if too long scroll down to bullet summary points.

"Neither the Oreshnik ballistic missile strike nor Putin's November 21 statement represent a significant inflection in Russian strike capabilities or likeliness to use a nuclear weapon. Russian forces fire nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missiles, Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable Kh-101 cruise missiles against Ukraine on a regular basis. Previous Russian missile strikes have targeted industrial and critical infrastructure including within Dnipro City that caused greater damage.[9] The only fundamentally new characteristic of the Russian strikes against Dnipro City on November 21 was the Oreshnik missile itself, which ostentatiously showcased reentry vehicles to amplify the spectacle of the strike and further imply a nuclear threat.[10][11] The West maintains credible deterrence options and Putin's nuclear saber-rattling should not constrain Western officials from choosing to further aid Ukraine. US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Bill Burns cautioned Western policymakers against fearing Putin's nuclear rhetoric in September 2024, describing Putin as a "bully" who will "continue to saber rattle from time to time."[12]"

ISW