re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.

Air Defense Forces destroy 38 missiles and 412 drones used by Russians to attack Ukraine

Air Defense Forces destroyed 38 missiles and 412 drones used by Russians to attack Ukraine since the evening of February 2.
According to Ukrinform, the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported this on Telegram.

From 6 p.m. on Monday, February 2, and during the night of Tuesday, February 3, the Russian army launched a combined strike on Ukraine using various types of air and ground-based missiles and UCAVs.

In total, the Air Force's radio-technical troops recorded 521 air attack weapons:

4 Zircon/Onyx missiles (the launch area is temporarily occupied Crimea);
32 Iskander-M/S-300 ballistic missiles (the launch areas are the Bryansk region of the Russian Federation, temporarily occupied Crimea);
7 Kh-22 / Kh-32 cruise missiles (the launch area is the Bryansk region);
28 Kh-101 / Iskander-K cruise missiles (launched from the Caspian Sea and Kursk region of the Russian Federation);
450 Shahed, Gerbera, Italmas, and other types of UCAVs (launched from Bryansk, Kursk, Orel, Shatalovo, Millerovo, Primorsko-Akhtarsk). Approximately 300 of them were Shahed-type UAVs.
The primary targets of the Russian strikes were the Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, and Odesa regions.

The air attack was repelled by aviation, anti-aircraft missile forces, electronic warfare units, unmanned systems units, and mobile fire groups of the Ukrainian Defense Forces.

According to preliminary data, as of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3, Air Defense Forces shot down/jammed 450 targets, including 38 missiles and 412 drones of various types:

4 Zircon/Onyx missiles;
11 Iskander-M / S-300 ballistic missiles;
3 Kh-22 / Kh-32 cruise missiles;
20 Kh-101 / Iskander-K cruise missiles;
412 UCAVs of various types.
There were 27 missiles and 31 UCAV hits documented in 27 locations, as well as debris from downed UAVs falling in 17 locations.

Information on six Russian missiles is being clarified.

Ukrinform

All this talk about kilometers taken is useless.

quote:

---

As Napoleon told us, the goal of war is not occupation of places but annihilation of the enemy.

---

Two examples in US history - In 1865, Grant completely bypassed Richmond and "went where Lee took his army". On the other hand, in 1944 Mark Clark decided to take Rome for the PR value and in doing so let half the German army in Italy escape to fight for another eleven months.

quote:

---

The battlefield value of territory lies in the tactical, operational, and strategic leverage it provides. Metric based assessments that reduce warfare to casualty figures and surface measures such as area gained can produce misleading interpretations of battlefield dynamics when detached from the territory’s operational and strategic value.

---

quote:

---

battlefield dynamics are often judged by metrics like casualty rates and square kilometers of controlled territory. This can produce a distorted picture, a problem I informally term the “Sahara Fallacy”

---

quote:

---

So what is the “Sahara Fallacy”? Imagine a scenario where an attacking side must choose how to allocate military resources, either to seize 10 square kilometers controlling the strategically vital Suez Canal or 1,000 square kilometers of random, landlocked Sahara desert.

---

quote:

---

if Russian forces move into a sparsely populated and lightly defended town surrounded by open steppe in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, territorial metrics may suggest accelerating gains, but not necessary a battlefield dynamics change

---

quote:

---

Thus, if the goal is to assess changes in battlefield dynamics, relying solely on kilometers as a metric risks falling into this fallacy. An important caveat is that territorial advances are not irrelevant, only that they cannot serve as a standalone indicator of dynamics

---

Yeah, it's complicated but looking at map changes is a waste of time.

LINK

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Fun fact, the person responsible for this is a Russian asset, Gerhard Schröder (see 2002 Atomgesetz) and the purpose of the move was to ensure German energy dependence on Russia.

He became chairman of the board of Rosneft and NordStream, and was about to join the board of Gasprom before the war started. He made tens of millions from Russian energy companies and pro-Putin lobbying. Lifelong friend with Putin, whom he lauded as a flawless democrat in 2004.

---

Hungarian elections in 68 days and a double-digit spread in the polls.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

I’m telling you as someone with multiple tours in the infantry

The future of war is horrifying

quote:

---

The "Steele Dossier" has been debunked as totally made up for Hillary campaign.

---

It’s still real to him! What a nut

quote:

---

This is at least a decade of rebuilding even if it had the US economy and without Russia's known corruption.

---

It is way more than a decade. Russia is currently building about 250 new tanks a year. It will take years to reconsitute their armored divisions and that doesn't even consider the replacement of their strategic armor reserves that they have lost in this war. They can't replace their armor reseves in the short or mid term.

Those reserves had tanks and IFV's dating back to the start of the Cold War, almost 70 years of production. That's gone, and it isn't coming back in our lifetimes.