The base of any missile defence is information: both large-area and fine-grained detection - an almost complete picture of what is flying about in the air. Do we recognize this and have / build the means necessary, maybe develop them further using Ukrainian experience with deploying 1000s of cheap sensors?
Then, a shahed can be shot down by any cheap propeller aircraft equipped with machine guns or rockets, or, as the Ukrainians show, by ground based machine guns, ideally computer directed. The means of choice being in my view anti-drone drones equipped with guns or rockets. Do we follow this path?
Being fast, cruise missiles are another matter. But even they can be caught by ground based computerized guns, and forced to fly higher, where they are seen by radar.
Thank you for the piece. Considering how long European leaders have had to react, i'd say we can safely venture from near-criminal to criminal neglect.
In three years of this conflict I've yet to see any evidence of Russia deliberately "terrorizing" any civilian centre with missile attacks in the way that Ukraine bombed the Donbass for 8 years. Yes, missiles can be jammed, intercepted, go off course. Missiles can be interdicted and the warheads fall, intact. Ukrainian AD missiles can miss, go haywire, or expend fuel and fall from the sky, but what evidence of the deliberate use of these scarce and costly systems just to 'frighten' people in the way that Ukraine sends drones to Moscow?
It's very easy to ignore what Russia does if you just ignore all those news. Must be pretty well living if you completely ignore what Russia does, and only focus on Ukraine responding to it.
Common sense must prevail. Russia doesn't deliberately attack Ukrainian civilians because it's counter-productive. It turns western opinion against Russia, it turns Ukrainian opinion against Russia and it's a waste of missiles because Ukropeasants are not holding up RF forces the UAF is. Only fools believe such nonsense. When Russia strikes hotels, it's because they are full of UAF and NATO officers, and that's fair game. If you want to complain about civilian casualties, takenit up with Israel first or you sound like a hypocrite.
I see you're quite adept at burying your head in your ass, and ensconsing yourself in an echo chamber of self-assurance. Good luck with that, but you also may with to explore, shall we say, less biased "news" sources, and work on developing a sense of credulity 🤷♂️ Bucha has been long since discredited as a hoax, any even the most cursory examination of evidence and timeline reveals it as such. Don't be such a propaganda poodle 🤷♂️
I wish I was paid to re-print the assessments of, oh you know, that bastion of communism, the Pentagon, but they agree with my statements 🙄
Answer me honestly..do you believe that Russia has brought it's full military might to bear on Ukraine? Convention weapons only, of course, but do you honestly believe that Russia is waging unrestricted warfare of the type that Israel is waging? Or of the type typical of US "interventions"? As a second question..how many civillians has USA killed in Yemen this far in 2025?
It is obvious to me that you need to have a sufficient self supply of both ballistic missile defense and ballistic missiles. After three years of Ukraine war, is any European state in the works of planning BM production lines?
Not convinced that having the capability to knock 9 bells out of Russian targets will deter. The issue of strategic deterrence and indeed in the face of its failure, the response, is more layered than this. Counter responses which hurt more and have a wider applications spring into my mind. How about a massive over match in the naval arena. How would they feel if their navy was rendered scrap and a naval blockade commenced that strangled maritime trade. Not so good l would imagine. This example comes from a typically British point of view. So missile capabilities are part of the mix but overmatching them in the deep battlefield has to weighed or gauged with other strategic choices.
The base of any missile defence is information: both large-area and fine-grained detection - an almost complete picture of what is flying about in the air. Do we recognize this and have / build the means necessary, maybe develop them further using Ukrainian experience with deploying 1000s of cheap sensors?
Then, a shahed can be shot down by any cheap propeller aircraft equipped with machine guns or rockets, or, as the Ukrainians show, by ground based machine guns, ideally computer directed. The means of choice being in my view anti-drone drones equipped with guns or rockets. Do we follow this path?
Being fast, cruise missiles are another matter. But even they can be caught by ground based computerized guns, and forced to fly higher, where they are seen by radar.
Only we need all this stuff.
Thank you for the piece. Considering how long European leaders have had to react, i'd say we can safely venture from near-criminal to criminal neglect.
Thank you for a great article. We wrote about this from an air defence perspective. Feel free to visit our blog at https://norskluftvern.com/2025/04/07/a-wake-up-call-europes-need-for-stronger-air-defences/
You're fully right, but only _near_ criminal? 100 _per year_, i.e. about two per week? Laughable, sadly. Sigh.
In three years of this conflict I've yet to see any evidence of Russia deliberately "terrorizing" any civilian centre with missile attacks in the way that Ukraine bombed the Donbass for 8 years. Yes, missiles can be jammed, intercepted, go off course. Missiles can be interdicted and the warheads fall, intact. Ukrainian AD missiles can miss, go haywire, or expend fuel and fall from the sky, but what evidence of the deliberate use of these scarce and costly systems just to 'frighten' people in the way that Ukraine sends drones to Moscow?
It's very easy to ignore what Russia does if you just ignore all those news. Must be pretty well living if you completely ignore what Russia does, and only focus on Ukraine responding to it.
Common sense must prevail. Russia doesn't deliberately attack Ukrainian civilians because it's counter-productive. It turns western opinion against Russia, it turns Ukrainian opinion against Russia and it's a waste of missiles because Ukropeasants are not holding up RF forces the UAF is. Only fools believe such nonsense. When Russia strikes hotels, it's because they are full of UAF and NATO officers, and that's fair game. If you want to complain about civilian casualties, takenit up with Israel first or you sound like a hypocrite.
Are you really that naive? Or simply a troll? Russia doesn't kill civilians because it would look bad?
Just from the past day, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-sumy-b034da8f4d83d08e5ea24c6033dbe3cf. Or choose any other. Or Bucha - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre.
I'll mute this thread since it's not worth spending my energy on trolls.
I see you're quite adept at burying your head in your ass, and ensconsing yourself in an echo chamber of self-assurance. Good luck with that, but you also may with to explore, shall we say, less biased "news" sources, and work on developing a sense of credulity 🤷♂️ Bucha has been long since discredited as a hoax, any even the most cursory examination of evidence and timeline reveals it as such. Don't be such a propaganda poodle 🤷♂️
Ha ha ha. How many rubles are you paid, товарищ?
I wish I was paid to re-print the assessments of, oh you know, that bastion of communism, the Pentagon, but they agree with my statements 🙄
Answer me honestly..do you believe that Russia has brought it's full military might to bear on Ukraine? Convention weapons only, of course, but do you honestly believe that Russia is waging unrestricted warfare of the type that Israel is waging? Or of the type typical of US "interventions"? As a second question..how many civillians has USA killed in Yemen this far in 2025?
We'll proceed based on your answers 🤔
It is obvious to me that you need to have a sufficient self supply of both ballistic missile defense and ballistic missiles. After three years of Ukraine war, is any European state in the works of planning BM production lines?
Not convinced that having the capability to knock 9 bells out of Russian targets will deter. The issue of strategic deterrence and indeed in the face of its failure, the response, is more layered than this. Counter responses which hurt more and have a wider applications spring into my mind. How about a massive over match in the naval arena. How would they feel if their navy was rendered scrap and a naval blockade commenced that strangled maritime trade. Not so good l would imagine. This example comes from a typically British point of view. So missile capabilities are part of the mix but overmatching them in the deep battlefield has to weighed or gauged with other strategic choices.