We are now beginning to enter the stage of the war where Russia is unable to sustain a general offensive all the way up and down the frontline and must resort to terrorism to project fear and the illusion of unstoppable, corrupted power.

Expect more and more of this crap as Russia is less and less able to credibly fight a ground war.

Remember, acts of terrorism definitionally rely on propaganda creating mass panic for their power as if the perpetrators of the terrorism possessed true power they would have resorted to actual coordinated military action such as fighting on the frontline or taking territory.

In otherwords if Russia chooses to attempt something like this, it is by definition a sign of extreme weakness on their part as was the lazy attempt to claim Ukraine tried to assassinate Putin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok so you don't actually know, but you're assuming based on second or third order effects. It's not important what experts and insiders know they actually do have, I was mainly just curious why you thought that they had worse ISR than UA.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would consider a critical air defense asset getting struck in the face by a cheap flying bomb a maximally "first order" effect.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They have a ton of problems leading to that, and traditional ISR is somewhat one of them. Sure that's first order, but I meant that you're just assuming based on things that have happened down the line from the initial intelligence collection step, which are a myriad.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

From your perspective you see a speculative assumption based on indirect evidence, from my perspective I see footage of a cheap flying bomb smashing into critical air defense assets as a wholistic measurement of ISR capability in realworld terms.

We are both right.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I've seen evidence of the opposite, and just because you see something on social media, there's still a ton you don't see, so I'm just saying speculation based on things you see online aren't particularly useful without other evidence.