In all seriousness, I don’t think AA could guarantee this, not against RuZ saturation attacks.
UKR will have to move substations underground, in phases.
As for the main power stations, they need hardened cover and lots of point defense systems.
Why norcorean troops in Ukraine is not an escalation? Why Europe can’t send troops to Ukraine?
In any proper war, the Ukrainians would have been already granted the means to wreck the airfields deep in Russia which are home to the bomber squadrons and their crews, not to mention the factories and their workers which turn out the bombers and ordnance.
Imagine if because of misplaced overthinking about EsCaLaTiOn, the British in WW2 had been forced to counter the V-1 attacks *only* by using flak and regular fighter planes over the UK. They’d be denied the means (by the US or USSR?) from destroying the launch-sites and any V-1s on the ground before they launch as well as the factories which were part of the supply chain.
The First World’s support has blatantly limited the Ukrainians’ capability to picking off ants one by one rather than obliterating the anthills. Guess who benefits from this inefficient and attritional strategy? (Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians).
Destroy the archers, not the arrows. Meanwhile the West keeps signaling with its slow-drip of aid and (over-)emphasis on point defense that the Ukrainians are being impudent in asking for the means to put that maxim into practice..
4 comments
Give them 50
In all seriousness, I don’t think AA could guarantee this, not against RuZ saturation attacks.
UKR will have to move substations underground, in phases.
As for the main power stations, they need hardened cover and lots of point defense systems.
Why norcorean troops in Ukraine is not an escalation? Why Europe can’t send troops to Ukraine?
In any proper war, the Ukrainians would have been already granted the means to wreck the airfields deep in Russia which are home to the bomber squadrons and their crews, not to mention the factories and their workers which turn out the bombers and ordnance.
Imagine if because of misplaced overthinking about EsCaLaTiOn, the British in WW2 had been forced to counter the V-1 attacks *only* by using flak and regular fighter planes over the UK. They’d be denied the means (by the US or USSR?) from destroying the launch-sites and any V-1s on the ground before they launch as well as the factories which were part of the supply chain.
The First World’s support has blatantly limited the Ukrainians’ capability to picking off ants one by one rather than obliterating the anthills. Guess who benefits from this inefficient and attritional strategy? (Hint: it’s not the Ukrainians).
Destroy the archers, not the arrows. Meanwhile the West keeps signaling with its slow-drip of aid and (over-)emphasis on point defense that the Ukrainians are being impudent in asking for the means to put that maxim into practice..
Comments are closed.