Russia Claims Breakthrough With ATACMS

S-300/400 TEL have to stay close to the Radar for mainly two reasons.

The Radar vehicle also has the generator supplying the TELs with electricity.

and the even more important reason is that the radar data can only be transmited over a short distance so if the TEL is too far out it can't get data from the Radar anymore.

Edit: max range for a S-300 is 120m between the TELs and the Radar and since the S-400 is actually just a S-300PM3 its probably the same or at least very similar

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/m...

Ukraine is being hit with Iskander-M all the time, e.g. just days ago at Myrhorod taking out SU-27s.

The quality of Russian equipment being deployed right now is really bad.

And yet Ukraine is still losing territory, countless men, and the war. This blasé attitude is just bizarre, as if NATO has a secret stock of wunderwaffen about to be arrive and deliver the coup de grâce any day. NATO has spent a quarter trillion dollars+ on this proxy war, staked its credibility on it, and is losing.

Fun bonus if you want to watch some people die:

Things people who have lost their humanity say.

US-made weapons augmented by Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites for position updates in Ukraine are now susceptible to Russian electronic warfare (EW) jamming ... The weapons affected may include the 155mm Excalibur artillery projectiles, Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and weapons rounds used with the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), among others, depending on how they are employed by the weapons operators.

An unnamed source reportedly familiar with the classified report told the NYT that in the worst-case scenario, only one in 19 Excalibur rounds was hitting its target, where the report said the cost per successful strike skyrocketed from $300,000 to $1.9 million between January and August 2023.

Being able to test GPS jamming techniques against intact munitions isn't some hypothetical academic problem.

https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/33448

I concede that NATO would put in more effort against Russia, but how about better not finding out in the first place? Russia would also put in more effort.

This is hubris at its finest.

That said, the end of the first paragraph is "Russian state media reported on Thursday" — even after the ink is dry on the ultimate settlement of the peace negotiations that have not yet started, we won't know for sure how many stories like this are propaganda.

But my imagination fails me to see how a soldiers is smuggling a missile, it won't fit in his pockets/ass and he can't ride it to Kremlin and they must be some good kilometers behind the font lines. so tell me how you imagine this happening ?

Of course, not all free media is competent and Reuters is making the exact same mistake of blindly citing Russian sources without doing due diligence.

The US really doesn't have to think about these things because there are oceans between it and any potential adversary powerful enough to threaten it: any defense of the US would rely mostly on its navy and air force. In contrast, the most destructive wars are those fought with land forces, e.g., WW I, WW II, the Chinese Civil War and the one time (namely, the US Civil War) that a big land war was fought in North America. (The American Revolutionary War was a mild affair compared to the 4 wars I just listed because unlike the 4 wars I just listed, the homeland of one of the combatants was never in jeopardy.)

The US security establishment is privileged because it does not need to become competent at sharing a land mass (or, worse, a plain such as the European Plain shown in the link below) with nations with high military potential:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_plain.png

That’s why the war continues.

If it had anything to do with NATO, but maybe you didn’t notice that as a direct result of this war 2 nations with borders with Russia have joined NATO and those 2 nations are significantly more useful members for NATO with a highly advanced defense industry in the case of Sweden, and a history of kicking Russian ass against significant odds in the case of Finland.

And even the nonsense of NATO entering Russia is ridiculous. NATO is made of functioning countries that want to basically just do trade. The last thing they want is a war with a nuclear power. Heck, 2.5 years into a very clear war of aggression by Russia where there is no uncertainty about Russia’s moral guilt and the illegalness of its invasion as well as the legality of Ukraine’s defense of itself, NATO has just given Ukraine the permission to strike on Russian soil but even then in a highly limited area and only indisputably military targets.

All the evidence for decades, including, for example, efforts by the U.S. to increase free trade with Russia, the Brits inviting Russian oligarchs to buy up their key football clubs and all the land in London, and Germany deliberately making itself dependent on Russian gas, has shown that NATO countries want Russia to be a partner in the community of nations and have absolutely no interest in Russia’s largely worthless land.

The Russian military is an absolute embarrassment, and to the extent the Russian leadership and further, the Russian people, continue to allow this illegal war of aggression to continue under their names, it’s an embarrassment to them as well.

When your rallying cry is “we have a history of enduring fighting bitter battles with massive loss of life to gain little to no useful territory” to justify continuing this war where you’re losing badly and embarrassing yourself on the world stage with a begging bowl aimed at North Korea, you’ve shown yourself to not be a serious nation in the 21st century.

Ironically, pushing Finland into NATO, bringing Moscow into SRBM range of an actual NATO member. Oops.

The idea that it would have even the slightest interest in doing so is just absolutely fucking absurd.

It's just pure scare imagery that the Russian deep state puts out -- to feed its internal narratives ("The West out to encircle us, only the Russian state can protect you"), and to confuse and mollify external opposition to its blatantly aggressive actions against neighboring states.