What's key to understanding this attack in particular is that Ukraine isn't really hobbling a key Russian asset. They're damaging extremely expensive, entirely irreplaceable strategic systems that are typically used to saber-rattle the last stages of a war. If push comes to shove, Russia has fewer assets to threaten their adversaries with.
If you understand the difference between tactical integrity and strategic integrity, it's pretty easy to gauge the relative impact of this attack.
You raise a good point, though. Why is the West, via its proxy, attacking (not for the first time, it must be said) a part of what it recognizes as Russia’s nuclear strategic assets? Sounds highly reckless and dangerous! What happened to winning?
Because good PR prolongs this war but doesn’t win it. Because ultimately, the interests of the nation, the regime, and its Western supporters are not aligned.
Russia is producing new ballistic missile submarines approximately one per year.
[1] - https://archive.is/tQkQt
duxup•8mo ago
These kind of meta conversation taglines always make me skeptical of an article.
Not as damaged as what? vs someone somewhere on the internet who overstated things? I'm sure someone on the internet overstates just about anything.
So I go on and read the article and yup, nothing that really indicates more or less damage than I've already seen.