Both this event as well as the Iranian campaign expose the low stock piles that most NATO countries are facing.
But it's also exposing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. A single patriot missile, a single one, costs around $ 4 million, and its the only weapon that may intercept missiles that cost 1.5 up to 40 times less.
Even when taking the major Russian ballistic missiles like the Kh101, the Iskander and Kalibr the economics are better for the Russians between 4 and 1.5 ratio.
Moreover NATO has no weapon that can intercept the Iskanders which have had so far a 90% effectiveness. Good thing that Russia cannot mass produce them.
But here's the most interesting part: what you launch to intercept is not based on the cost of what's attacking you, but on the potential damage of not intercepting it.
If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft you may still have to launch a Patriot to intercept it, you can't risk your high command being eliminated because the attacking weapon was cheap.
PAC-3 MSE can take down Iskanders. Not a very favorable exchange rate when you fire 2-3 per Iskander, but still doable.
If NATO was fighting Russia, launch aircraft (and airbases) would be prime targets. Ukraine fights the way it does because of very limited funds and resources.
Ukraine had to become extremely parsimonious with their Patriot use as supplied dwindled to a fraction. In many cases Ukraine simply chose not to engage unless the Kinzal/Iskanders were optimally detected and attacking a significant target.
And the upgrades really weren't much except adding decoys that had always been an option with Iskander.
Now that worldwide inventories of PAC3-MSE are almost non-existent, Russia will push its MIRBM attacks over the next year or more. Ukraine really doesn't have many options other than to continuing their drone offensive against deep targets in Russia.
Ukraine deal with the "50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center" stuff by having a lot of cheaper interceptors to take them out - some drones, some cheaper SAMs, some aircraft.
It was a bit of a mistake of the US not to use that stuff for Iran which the Ukrainians would have been delighted to supply.
In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision.
Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed?
I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable.
US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.
Not the only way. Sending drones against Russia's oil industry and logistics centres is having a pretty spectacular effect too, and Russia's having no luck defending against those either.
Numbers have never been in Ukraine's favor. With provided funds and tech by EU and US to mass produce long range weapons Ukraine managed to shorten the gap somewhat, but they're still losing, and they're a "zombie" country that is still afloat just because tens of billions are pumped into their economy and military every year.
It depends a bit how you calculate your numbers. Ukraine vs Russia, Russia wins. Democratic world that doesn't want dictators invading it vs Russia, democracy wins.
My point is that conventional strike can provide a meaningful deterrent, even without the NATO umbrella or a domestic nuclear capability. If Putin had known in 2022 what this utterly gratuitous war would end up costing Russia, there's no way he would have gone ahead with it.
I have no idea what a drone factory is, but my mental image is a building with drone parts on one side, people assembling with glue, screwdrivers and soldering irons in the middle, and finished drones in boxes at the far end. It that building is destroyed by a missile you've lost a few drones and a building. No people were hurt, so just move to a new building.
The images out of Russia are a little different. Billions of dollars of plant and equipment blown up, hundreds of ships disabled, entire Wildberry warehouses covering acres going up in smoke. It doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a few days outage while you move stock and employees to a new location.
You don't have to go to MAD, just retaliate on a similar level. Ukraine should have ballistics that can hit Moscow soon. There's also hitting the launchers and missile factories though I'm not sure Ukr has the ability to do so.
All of this is predicated on the reality that 70%+ of Americans don't want to be in this war, none of our allies want any part of it either, and the person who started it is a coward who expected to get an easy win. Now we're stuck with said coward unwilling to take the loss and make a deal, but also unwilling to escalate and takes greater risks to use weapons like JDAM's that are in sufficient stock to level whole countries from the air.
What we're seeing here isn't some great asymmetry, it's disgusting failures of leadership both when starting a war nobody wanted, and failing to end it before wasting billions in exquisite kit that was designed to open up near-peers to SEAD/DEAD.
I didn't really understand your comment. More than 50% of Americans poll as supporting Ukraine, with something like an even split between too much, too little, and enough, meaning sentiment is generally weighted that the US should be involved or do more. Polling in Europe is more supportive.
But you used the word 'want'. I don't imagine anyone wants to be involved. Everyone who is wants the other side to stop fighting.
Comments
Both this event as well as the Iranian campaign expose the low stock piles that most NATO countries are facing.
But it's also exposing the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. A single patriot missile, a single one, costs around $ 4 million, and its the only weapon that may intercept missiles that cost 1.5 up to 40 times less.
Even when taking the major Russian ballistic missiles like the Kh101, the Iskander and Kalibr the economics are better for the Russians between 4 and 1.5 ratio.
Moreover NATO has no weapon that can intercept the Iskanders which have had so far a 90% effectiveness. Good thing that Russia cannot mass produce them.
But here's the most interesting part: what you launch to intercept is not based on the cost of what's attacking you, but on the potential damage of not intercepting it.
If a 50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center or expensive aircraft you may still have to launch a Patriot to intercept it, you can't risk your high command being eliminated because the attacking weapon was cheap.
PAC-3 MSE can take down Iskanders. Not a very favorable exchange rate when you fire 2-3 per Iskander, but still doable.
If NATO was fighting Russia, launch aircraft (and airbases) would be prime targets. Ukraine fights the way it does because of very limited funds and resources.
Not really, interception success rate fell from 37% to 7% as Iskanders got upgraded.
Ukraine had to become extremely parsimonious with their Patriot use as supplied dwindled to a fraction. In many cases Ukraine simply chose not to engage unless the Kinzal/Iskanders were optimally detected and attacking a significant target.
And the upgrades really weren't much except adding decoys that had always been an option with Iskander.
Now that worldwide inventories of PAC3-MSE are almost non-existent, Russia will push its MIRBM attacks over the next year or more. Ukraine really doesn't have many options other than to continuing their drone offensive against deep targets in Russia.
Software upgrades too - just make them fly a somewhat random path.
Ballistic missiles have limited maneuverability, and what little they do is not very significant for a system like Patriot PAC3-MSE.
Ukraine deal with the "50k Shahed drone is on course to hit your command center" stuff by having a lot of cheaper interceptors to take them out - some drones, some cheaper SAMs, some aircraft.
It was a bit of a mistake of the US not to use that stuff for Iran which the Ukrainians would have been delighted to supply.
I used to think like this as well, then I realized “how much do I value an apartment building full of people?” - which are often Russia’s targets.
Those are more likely to be misses than deliberate attacks. There's no value in striking apartment blocks void of military equipments.
You don't spend money to do so if you can hit more precious military or logistic or energy infrastructure.
There are way too many residential buildings hit for it to be an accident, all the time.
It’s a part of Moscow’s strategy to weaken civilian resolve. They did the same thing in Chechnya.
That's speculation.
Let alone the fact that you can weaken civilian resolve better by hitting logistical hubs and energy infrastructure.
In any case, if you are watching the invader launch Shaheds into your country, and know that many will hit buildings full of people, that has to be factored in as well. Even if it cost $1M to take down a $25k Shahed, but it saved a life/lives, I could see a decision maker still doing that. I am certainly glad that I am not in the position to make such a decision.
Of course, unless you have 40x the budget of the enemy forever, it's not sustainable. Also, how fast can you produce your $1M missile, vs. the enemy's $25k Shahed?
I have been arguing that Shahed-style (cheap/easy to build/very long-range) cruise missiles completely changed the nature of warfare, for years now. A saturation attack like that is currently possible for a non-peer to pull off, and is currently not fully defendable.
US and other military procurement folks have been asleep at the wheel on this for what, 4 years now? The proof is what Iran was able to do. How did not they see this coming? This should be a huge public scandal.
If defensive weapons don't work because too expensive, then the only way out seems to be M.A.D. which Ukraine can only attain if they join NATO.
Not the only way. Sending drones against Russia's oil industry and logistics centres is having a pretty spectacular effect too, and Russia's having no luck defending against those either.
It's a numbers game and I don't know if the numbers are in favor of Ukraine anymore, given this lack of defense weapons.
Numbers have never been in Ukraine's favor. With provided funds and tech by EU and US to mass produce long range weapons Ukraine managed to shorten the gap somewhat, but they're still losing, and they're a "zombie" country that is still afloat just because tens of billions are pumped into their economy and military every year.
It depends a bit how you calculate your numbers. Ukraine vs Russia, Russia wins. Democratic world that doesn't want dictators invading it vs Russia, democracy wins.
My point is that conventional strike can provide a meaningful deterrent, even without the NATO umbrella or a domestic nuclear capability. If Putin had known in 2022 what this utterly gratuitous war would end up costing Russia, there's no way he would have gone ahead with it.
The problem is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/30/us-firm-drone-...
If you can't defend yourself, then it is increasingly difficult to attack.
I have no idea what a drone factory is, but my mental image is a building with drone parts on one side, people assembling with glue, screwdrivers and soldering irons in the middle, and finished drones in boxes at the far end. It that building is destroyed by a missile you've lost a few drones and a building. No people were hurt, so just move to a new building.
The images out of Russia are a little different. Billions of dollars of plant and equipment blown up, hundreds of ships disabled, entire Wildberry warehouses covering acres going up in smoke. It doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as a few days outage while you move stock and employees to a new location.
Maybe I'm missing something.
You seem to be only applying this observation to one side, though. Russian arms manufacturing has come under attack too.
You don't have to go to MAD, just retaliate on a similar level. Ukraine should have ballistics that can hit Moscow soon. There's also hitting the launchers and missile factories though I'm not sure Ukr has the ability to do so.
KH101 is a cruise missile, not ballistic.
All of this is predicated on the reality that 70%+ of Americans don't want to be in this war, none of our allies want any part of it either, and the person who started it is a coward who expected to get an easy win. Now we're stuck with said coward unwilling to take the loss and make a deal, but also unwilling to escalate and takes greater risks to use weapons like JDAM's that are in sufficient stock to level whole countries from the air.
What we're seeing here isn't some great asymmetry, it's disgusting failures of leadership both when starting a war nobody wanted, and failing to end it before wasting billions in exquisite kit that was designed to open up near-peers to SEAD/DEAD.
I didn't really understand your comment. More than 50% of Americans poll as supporting Ukraine, with something like an even split between too much, too little, and enough, meaning sentiment is generally weighted that the US should be involved or do more. Polling in Europe is more supportive.
But you used the word 'want'. I don't imagine anyone wants to be involved. Everyone who is wants the other side to stop fighting.
EA-3167 is referring to Iran, not Ukraine.
Thank you, that’s correct.
Not sure what does it have to do with Patriot stock piling or the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare.