I agree. A lot of these "reports" seem to be propaganda, from both sides. Besides, why waste an ICBM by launching into basically into your neighbor's backyard? It makes no sense.
Lounge of The Russian-Ukrainian War
- Thread starter Ember
- Start date
^ From the tweet from @Labienus :
"The RS-26 did not go into serial production because of this ambiguity; at the time, Russia was a signatory to the INF treaty, which prohibited intermediate range missiles."...
"Donald Trump withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019.If the United States had remained in the treaty, this version of the RS-26 would not have been available for use by Russia."
Maybe that's part of the message and timing of this weapon's application. The Russians have hit Dnipro plenty of times before. I don't know if this weapon has a big warhead/capability difference, but the delivery method is unique so far. Maybe it wouldn't have happened without US withdrawal from this treaty (amongst many other such treaty/agreement withdrawals/violations.
It is part of why Putin says the US is "agreement incapable." Such matters have consequences. With this missile, Russia has demonstrated at least delivery system competence and ability to defeat delivery countermeasures in a hostile environment. Who knows what other warheads this thing is capable of carrying and to what true range...
------------------------------
Regarding the "updated nuclear doctrine" of Russia: There's a fair amount of ambiguity and passive verbiage in the stuff I've read of it. Things like "reserves the right" and 'attacks deemed critical." Russia put its nuke forces on high alert after the supposed Kursk/Byransk ATACMS attack and responded with this new delivery method. Nobody knows for sure what it means, other than implied they can put nukes on this thing and deliver at 5000 km range.
"The RS-26 did not go into serial production because of this ambiguity; at the time, Russia was a signatory to the INF treaty, which prohibited intermediate range missiles."...
"Donald Trump withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019.If the United States had remained in the treaty, this version of the RS-26 would not have been available for use by Russia."
Maybe that's part of the message and timing of this weapon's application. The Russians have hit Dnipro plenty of times before. I don't know if this weapon has a big warhead/capability difference, but the delivery method is unique so far. Maybe it wouldn't have happened without US withdrawal from this treaty (amongst many other such treaty/agreement withdrawals/violations.
It is part of why Putin says the US is "agreement incapable." Such matters have consequences. With this missile, Russia has demonstrated at least delivery system competence and ability to defeat delivery countermeasures in a hostile environment. Who knows what other warheads this thing is capable of carrying and to what true range...
------------------------------
Regarding the "updated nuclear doctrine" of Russia: There's a fair amount of ambiguity and passive verbiage in the stuff I've read of it. Things like "reserves the right" and 'attacks deemed critical." Russia put its nuke forces on high alert after the supposed Kursk/Byransk ATACMS attack and responded with this new delivery method. Nobody knows for sure what it means, other than implied they can put nukes on this thing and deliver at 5000 km range.
Last edited:
This morning everyone on Twitter is saying that yes this was a mid-range ICBM, which triggered the West's ICBM launch detection network, and the Western powers didn't know at first whether it was a nuke or just conventional. Others say that Russia did warn the West before launching to avoid having them react mistakenly as if it was a nuke.
Either way, this is being seen as the response to the West firing the ATACMS and Storm missiles at Russia. Basically saying if we keep messing with them, next time it might really be a nuke.
I’m always amazed at people, groups of people, and countries who act this way. They keep escalating and provoking then when the other party strikes back suddenly they claim the other party is the aggressor and they are victims.
Since many systems and people in the US are just chock full of garbage and people bluff all the time, they think this strategy always works, but eventually they mess with the wrong person.
The point of the strike is the old the threat is stronger than the execution. They could easily have used strapped a nuclear warhead to this missile and that’s the message they want to convey.
Caduceus
Heritage
Most wars throughout history start like this.
It's a good thing that we withdrew from the INF treaty, because it included only the US and Russia. Other countries, like Iran and China, were free to develop intermediate ballistic missiles while our hands were tied.
Caduceus
Heritage
Belgian media and Reuters seem to confirm.
NATO boss Mark Rutte in Florida to visit Trump
The aircraft landed near Mar-a-Lago, the estate of Donald Trump on Friday morning.
www.brusselstimes.com
Think of what this means. Every major city in Western Europe is within striking range in 10-15 minutes. The Russians are planning on putting them on subs that can sit off coastlines, leaving cities like London, Paris, or Berlin within 3-5 minutes range. That leaves barely enough time to run orders up the chain of command, let alone deploy troops or get people to shelters. It is my understanding that these things travel at MACH 10-12, depending on what payload they carry. The West has nothing that can intercept them. Tired and worn-out western/Hellyweird delusional fantasies that Russia is a stupid 3rd world backward hellhole have left western military readiness with its pants down. Checkmate, ziobiotches.
Caduceus
Heritage
Putin has said that he will give enough warning to allow civilians to be evacuated from an area about to be hit.
Not sure if thats just a few hours or a day or two.
I heard that, because as he has shown with the Ukraine, he does not want to hit civilians. However, I doubt he would give any warning to military targets. That was what I meant about there not being enough time to seek shelter...on military bases. Some might make it, but not everyone.
Last edited:
With this first one, he issued a warning first that they were going to launch, and that it was not a nuke.
Likewise, if he fires at a NATO target, he could easily go with a non-nuke option. I imagine he could easily sink a large ship with the kind of kinetic penetrators we saw from the first launch. It's a potent weapon even without nukes, as long as it's used on high value targets. He could hit NATO headquarters at 10am.
However, he has to be real careful they don't decide one of these launches is actually a nuke. Frankly, you could expect Western powers to pretend it is a nuke in spite of being warned otherwise, and use a nuke on Russia.
They appear to want WWIII, so I doubt they would miss a chance to start it. A non-nuke Hazel missile would be more than enough excuse for them. These are interesting times!
If this Hazelnut missile is such a game-changer, why was it not used by Russia earlier? Wouldn’t it have been in Putin’s interest to show his hand here earlier and potentially save hundreds of thousands of Slavic lives from the current status quo of retaking land meter by meter in a trench war of attrition?
This reminds me of the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles when they first debuted, as they were also a game-changer unanswered by western forces. And yet the west was not deterred and has kept stubbornly propping up the proxy war… not intending to undermine what this new weapon might mean, just genuinely curious if anyone has an explanation?
This reminds me of the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles when they first debuted, as they were also a game-changer unanswered by western forces. And yet the west was not deterred and has kept stubbornly propping up the proxy war… not intending to undermine what this new weapon might mean, just genuinely curious if anyone has an explanation?
He only used the Kinzhal on Ukrainian targets, right?
Using them or Hazelbuns on an actual NATO target or city would definitely be a game changer because of how the general public would react. The focus would shift from convenient unquestioned Ukraine support to people asking themselves and the government if there is a way to stop this ASAP.
Very few western civilians are interested in an actual taking place right here with mass casualties.