Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Fez909]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

 

[Silas Loom]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

It’s not entirely clear that they have: only Ukraine is saying it was an ICBM, based on their reckons, but nobody else has confirmed that analysis of the missile’s journey supports that theory.

 

[Pickman's model]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

500 million dollars? i think you're having a laugh. this site Sentinel ICBM Exceeds Projected Cost by 37 Percent | Arms Control Association reckons $162m

 

[maomao]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

It's not the bomb that costs, it's the delivery. These are big rockets that leave the atmosphere and then come down with several separate targeted reentries. It would be hard to mistake something else for an ICBM surely.

 

[CNT36]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

Is there anyone saying that "the west" have not escalated over the last few days? It could be a good or bad decision but it is an escalation. One side (or allies, supporters, pals) escalates the other responds likely with more escalation and on it goes.
There has been a lot of talk about Russia's nuke delivery systems not being upto much. Launching one days after updating your nuclear doctrines adds a bit of credibility.

 

[TopCat]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

Five hundred million US each? You are having a bubble.

 

[TopCat]

It's not the bomb that costs, it's the delivery. These are big rockets that leave the atmosphere and then come down with several separate targeted reentries. It would be hard to mistake something else for an ICBM surely.

Ballistic missile does the same but not as high up.

 

[andysays]

So Russia have fired the first ever ICBM outside of a test situation. These are for nuke delivery, but this wasn't a nuke.

Obviously it was a threat or show of force, but it seems like a huge escalation - from the side who keep claiming 'the West' are escalating.

One comment I read said these bombs cost $500,000,000 each. I don't know if that's true, but if so, that's an expensive threat, that's not likely to have the consequences they want.

The Ukrainian claim is being disputed

US official disputes Ukraine's claim that Russia used intercontinental ballistic missile​

An unnamed US official says the missile fired at Ukraine overnight was a ballistic missile but not an intercontinental ballistic missile, according to our US partner CBS News. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said a Russian missile fired towards Dnipro had the "characteristics" of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Earlier today, the Ukrainian air force said that an ICBM had been launched by Russia. We're still waiting on an official comment from the US government.

 

[CNT36]

2hats is good at this stuff.

 

[2hats]

Appears to have been a RS-26 'Rubezh' IRBM with six vehicles. Limited evidence suggests kinetic sub-payloads.

 

[CNT36]

Quick response!

 

[Pickman's model]

Quick response!

2hats never sleeps

 

[Silas Loom]

Still an unsubtle message about Russia’s supposed preparedness to nuke a Ukrainian city, though. And still the only intimidation tactic they possess any more.

 

[Chz]

Test launch was announced the day before publicly, probably before then to the PRC and NATO. This is why the US cleared out the embassy in Kyiv.

To put it another way, if the press reports "Russia may be preparing to launch an experimental ballistic missile. It could allegedly be the RS-26 Rubezh without a nuclear charge," it seems like the content was fairly well known. It would surprise me greatly if the intelligence apparatus didn't know what they could read in the papers.

Nuclear powers don't launch ICBMs without warning unless they want the day to get really interesting really quickly.

Edit to add:
Also, what do you target with your one-of-a-kind, experimental hundred-million dollar ICBM?

"Key sites affected include an industrial enterprise and a rehabilitation centre for people with disabilities, where the heating system was destroyed and windows shattered.

Two private homes also suffered damage, with one engulfed in flames before emergency services extinguished the fire. A separate fire broke out in a garage cooperative, causing significant damage to nine garages.

The attack injured two individuals: a 57-year-old man, who was treated at the scene, and a 42-year-old woman, who required hospitalisation."

Dnipro Targeted in Russian Missile Barrage Featuring ICBM ‘Rubezh’ - https://eutoday.net

Ukrainian air defence systems successfully intercepted six of the Kh-101 missiles. However, details regarding the impact and effectiveness of the "Rubezh" and

eutoday.net

 

[DownwardDog]

Stumbling into WW3 because we prefer one set of criminals to preside over the muddy arse crack of Eastern Europe rather than another set is just fucking great.

 

[2hats]

Nuclear powers don't launch ICBMs without warning unless they want the day to get really interesting really quickly.

(New START) Treaty requires Russia to provide prior (24 hours) notification to the US of any 'treaty defined' ICBM launch (for the purposes of the treaty, some IRBM might be classified as ICBM). That might have been what the earlier temporary closure of the US Embassy in Kiev was about (maybe).

 

[Silas Loom]

Stumbling into WW3 because we prefer one set of criminals to preside over the muddy arse crack of Eastern Europe rather than another set is just fucking great.

“Muddy arse crack”. So European security chiefs should only help protect countries you think have agreeable climates and leisure facilities from Putin’s thugs, abandoning anywhere you don’t fancy visiting?

 

[TopCat]

“Muddy arse crack”. So European security chiefs should only help protect countries you think have agreeable climates and leisure facilities from Putin’s thugs, abandoning anywhere you don’t fancy visiting?

I don’t know you got to that from what they wrote

 

[TopCat]

Still an unsubtle message about Russia’s supposed preparedness to nuke a Ukrainian city, though. And still the only intimidation tactic they possess any more.

The sound of advancing artillery would intimidate most people.

 

[2hats]

Technical note: it might have been some mod on a RS-26. Development on that was supposed to have been mothballed ~6 years ago: official Russian sources publicly announced the cancellation of the programme. But they might have been working on a variant behind 'closed' doors. It was banned under the INF Treaty but Trump withdrew the US from that in 2019.

 

[kebabking]

SS-X-31, the NATO reporting name for RS-26, was originally designed to carry either one larger munition, or 4 smaller munitions, so the the mod that 2hats writes of could be the warhead bus.

The terminology issue is partly a result of sleight of hand - it technically met the requirements of being an ICBM, which was not regulated by the INF treaty, because it had a theoretical range that got to the 5,500km mark that crossed into ICBM territory, but if you put the operational warhead bus on it, and put warheads on the bus, it's range dropped right down into IRBM/INF territory of 2-3000km.

The other of course is politics - despite recent pronouncements, the Biden admin is still rank with self-deterence, and they always seek to tone down Russian actions so they don't have to respond to them. An ICBM is news, but a 'standard BM' is just business as usual...

 

[2hats]

SS-X-31, the NATO reporting name for RS-26, was originally designed to carry either one larger munition, or 4 smaller munitions, so the the mod that 2hats writes of could be the warhead bus.

Could have been two, three, etc IRBM instead of one. That's not clear (publicly) right now, but SBIRS will know. Not impossible that the 'sub-payloads' could have been part of the re-entry vehicle overstressed in the lower atmosphere, instead of individual, designed sub-payloads (cf the post-interception Iranian payloads that rained down on Israel the other month). Since it was mothballed, that begs the question as to how many there are; might just have been one of a few development test articles. Or could even have been a modified ICBM (eg Topol). Someone is going to be crawling over that target field.

 

[elbows]

So is the current uncertainty at this particular moment down to whether the missile strike Ukraine have been going on about actually involved an intercontinental ballistic missile as opposed to intermediate range ballistic missile?

 

[kebabking]

So is the current uncertainty at this particular moment down to whether the missile strike Ukraine have been going on about actually involved an intercontinental ballistic missile as opposed to intermediate range ballistic missile?

Pretty much - it's interesting to the nerds like me, but it's Angels/Pin in big picture terms - Russia is whacking Ukraine hard, and using stuff they've not used before, not least to illustrate their threats of Armageddon so lapped up by the panicked and those of goldfish memory.

 

[2hats]

One or more missiles were almost certainly used. If the former possibly it's the Topol-M/ME/MR, which would tally better with the RV count. It appears to have originated from Kapustin Yar. The ME is often used to test MIRV from there to Sary Shagan, so that could make a good candidate for a demo exercise (I once happened to be perfectly located downrange just past the target on the night of a launch, but bad weather spoiled my view).

 

[StoneRoad]

I honestly don't think Zelenskyy can compromise with Putin.

It's the other way ...

Putin has repeatedly stated, as have his minions, like Lavrov - although not quite in these words - that he's not in the least interested in reducing the scale of his demands, which can be summarised as Ukraine's complete surrender.

 

[Spymaster]

Could have been two, three, etc IRBM instead of one. That's not clear (publicly) right now, but SBIRS will know. Not impossible that the 'sub-payloads' could have been part of the re-entry vehicle overstressed in the lower atmosphere, instead of individual, designed sub-payloads (cf the post-interception Iranian payloads that rained down on Israel the other month). Since it was mothballed, that begs the question as to how many there are; might just have been one of a few development test articles. Or could even have been a modified ICBM (eg Topol). Someone is going to be crawling over that target field.

So have they actually launched a missile costing tens of millions and just broken a few windows?

 

[Pickman's model]

So have they actually launched a missile costing tens of millions and just broken a few windows?

If it's capable of carrying a nuclear warhead it rather answers the chortles about whether Russia can use its nuclear missiles

 

[The39thStep]

The idea that any negotiated settlement where Ukraine gives up territory in return for "peace" will be long-lasting, or bring stability to the region, is really quite naive. NATO may effectively cease to exist in less than 2 months. Putin is already committed to specific low level attacks on the UK and on UK soil (Salisbury), does anyone think that a negotiated peace and defeat for Ukraine will put an end to that threat?

Shit like this is really the tip of the iceberg. The Trump era will give Putin a much freer hand to attack his remaining Western enemies (particularly the UK and France) in much worse ways than this: Western officials suspect Russia was behind a plot to put incendiary packages on cargo planes

What makes you think that NATO 'may effectively cease to exist in less than 2 months' ?

 

[kebabking]

So have they actually launched a missile costing tens of millions and just broken a few windows?

Sadly not - the most important thing they've done is to big up the nuclear threats by using a nuclear weapons platform. It might have hit Ukraine, but it's target wasn't Ukraine.

For the Ukrainians, it's shown them that Russia can hit their infrastructure - the MIRVs in the strike travel infinitely faster than even the hypersonic missiles that Russia have been using hitherto - an IRBM/ICBM warhead arrives pretty much vertically, and might be doing twenty times the speed of sound (15,000 miles an hour?) when it turns up. Some of the most modern Patriot variants can intercept them, and the SM-6 US Navy missile, and the RN's Aster 30 could get them too, but Ukraine's stock of high end Patriots is threadbare, and that's all they've got - I'm not even sure they got the version that would be effective would be of any use...