On the morning of October 11, Russia continued to launch missile strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. And the day before, the Russian Armed Forces fired more than a hundred long-range missiles at targets in Ukraine – this has not happened for a very long time. What do these strikes mean from a military point of view, what effect will they have, and why was Ukraine’s air defense unable to cope with them?
“Today, the Russian Armed Forces inflicted a massive strike with long-range high-precision weapons on the objects of the military control, communications and energy systems of Ukraine. The target has been reached. All designated targets have been hit.”
This is how the beginning of the traditional report of the Ministry of Defense for October 10 looked like. In it, almost everything was traditional, except for the very fact of this message.
The strikes were delivered by a whole range of Russian long-range weapons. Air-launched cruise missiles Kh-101 and Kh-55 (555), Caliber missiles launched from the Black Sea, ground-based missiles, as well as loitering ammunition, the so-called kamikaze drones, in particular, Geran-2, which have become famous in recent years, were used.
By the way, the irony of fate is that Kh-55 missiles of Soviet production were once transferred by Ukraine to Russia as payment for debts for gas. There is reason to believe that it is these old products that Ukraine is being shelled with today.
Russia has not carried out missile strikes of this magnitude since February, from the very beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine. The total number of long-range missiles fired, according to the reports of the Ukrainian General Staff and numerous open sources, exceeded a hundred (according to some estimates, up to 150-200). The targets of these strikes were, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, energy, military command and communications facilities of Ukraine.
“The target has been reached. All designated facilities have been hit,” the Russian military department assured.
And indeed – all day on October 10, there were reports from Ukraine about a power outage in a particular city. In the evening, it became clear that Ukraine, at least for some time, had lost the ability to export electricity to Europe, which until recently had brought significant income to Kyiv. On the morning of October 11, the introduction of rolling power outages in a number of Ukrainian regions and even in the capital was announced.
In other words, Ukrainian energy facilities – substations, thermal power plants, distribution nodes – were indeed put out of action en masse. This has not only psychological and political significance (as a response to the terrorist attack against the Crimean bridge), but also purely military.
First of all, from a military point of view, the disabling of electrical substations sharply limits the possibilities for the operation of electrified railways.
There have already been statements that the Ukrainian Railways, after a massive blow, are switching some routes from electric traction to diesel. Thus, the supply of weapons, fuel, ammunition and personnel to the combat line is sharply reduced. But the consumption of artillery shells alone during high-intensity combat operations can amount to tens of thousands of units per day. It can be expected that the offensive impulse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which has practically died out in recent days, will now completely die out.
It is expected that Ukraine will spend the next few days on restoring power supply to the railways. At this time, trains stuck on de-energized tracks will be delivered by diesel locomotives to the nearest stations and accumulate there in large quantities. These grouped echelons may well become the target of the next Russian strikes. At least, this is what purely military logic dictates.
The scale, number, geography of the strikes inflicted suggests that the operation was carefully prepared, and deeply in advance. The Russian staffs must have developed it at least a few weeks ago. The targets had long been set, routes for the crews of heavy bombers were drawn up, it remained only to open the corresponding packages according to the classical scheme upon receipt of the order.
There is no doubt that this blow was unexpected for Ukraine – even despite all the predictability of the development of events after the terrorist attack on the Crimean bridge. Numerous sources report that Ukraine’s air defense systems were powerless against Russian cruise missiles and kamikaze drones. It also played a role that a significant part of these air defense systems had already been knocked out, and the fact that Russia had not attacked Kyiv for a long time, which means that the systems that previously covered the capital of Ukraine were relocated to other directions.
The effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense was also weakend by the art of Russian military leaders. The Russian command seems to have learned a number of lessons acquired from previous similar strikes.
Recall that earlier, most often, such strikes were carried out by several – up to 20-30 – missiles, and no more. U.S. intelligence assets working for the Armed Forces of Ukraine saw the launches of these missiles in real time, which means they could warn Ukrainian air defense systems long before the missiles entered their area of responsibility. In fact, thanks to the United States, the Armed Forces of Ukraine often knew in advance from which direction and at what time to expect the arrival of Russian long-range missiles.
This information radically facilitates the work of air defense systems. No less important, thanks to such a warning, Ukrainian air defense systems could only turn on the active radar mode for literally seconds in order to highlight the attacking missile in the final section of its flight. The less Ukrainian air defense radar works, the more difficult it was for Russian troops to detect and destroy it.
But on October 10, Russian troops acted in a completely different way. Firstly, the blow was precisely massive, dozens of missiles were used simultaneously. Secondly, these dozens of missiles of different types flew from different directions at different times in order to approach the target simultaneously from different directions.
In such conditions, air defense is overloaded. Even if missile launches are visible in advance, their simultaneous arrival at the target from different directions makes the air defense powerless to resist.
Finally, the missiles were launched in at least three, and maybe even four waves, in order to destroy targets that, for one reason or another, were not hit the first time. The sheer number of these launches suggests that Russia has been able to significantly increase the number of carriers and platforms from which these missiles can be fired. And including the number of crews of long-range bomber aviation trained in an appropriate way. The falsehood of Ukrainian propaganda claims that “Russia has run out of missiles” was clearly proven.
Thus, the political and emotional goals of the missile strikes were fully achieved by Russia. It has already been stated that the strikes inflicted by Russia had, first of all, an indicative meaning – as a demonstration of what would happen to Ukraine if it continued to conduct terrorist tactics.
However, they will acquire long-term military significance only if they continue in the same form in the coming days. From the point of view of combat effectiveness, not only the intensity, but also the regularity of such operations is important. On the morning of October 11, attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure continued, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale. Their real consequences for hostilities can be judged in a few days.
Nikolay Gulyaev, VIEW
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel