Not US sources. It seem to comes from the Radio ZET post this points to
"Polish media reported that two people died Tuesday afternoon after a projectile struck an area where grain was drying in Przewodów, a Polish village near the border with Ukraine."
ZET seems a legitimate source, but it's still a single journalist and some twitter posts.
At the time of me posting comment, the article opened with "A senior U.S. intelligence official says Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people."
I bet you he doesn't, both because he has had ample opportunity to do so already, because he's already losing conventionally, and because none of the endgames for escalation between two nuclear powers end well for anyone.
Occam's razor tells me that this was an accident, just like MH17 and Iran Air Flight 655 were.
Notice how neither Iran nor Malaysia 'escalated' in response to those attacks against them.
He is not losing though because potentially Russia can mobilize 20-40 millions of soldiers or even more if he convinces other countries like Belarus or Iran to help him.
it would be nice if the russian citizenry removed putin and removed all their troops from Ukraine, along with paying reparations. I don't think that's going to happen, though. Look at the convoluted path for the Soviet Union becoming Russia in the first place- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio... and contrast to the power structure and revenue structure that Putin has assembled.
They are as in favor of the war as rural Americans were in favor of invading Iraq. It's easy to bring death and destruction to foreigners, it's a little different when it's your ass, or your husband, or your son getting conscripted.
Mass mobilization on the multi-millions level would destroy his public support, and raising it was the whole reason for starting the war.
I hope you are right, but reports, and many comments from russians living abroad or within russia indicate that I am right. There are a few edge cases here and there but by and large their disappointment seems to be that _they_ are mobilized, and not the war itself. Again, I hope you are right! In my view, the victims here are _both_ Ukrainians and Russians. Such amazing cultures and countries destroyed and dragged in through the mud in the name of a primitive expansionist ideology. I hope we can at least help Ukraine achieve it's full capacity post war. Ideally without doing the damage that the EU did to the other east eu member countries.
>
I hope you are right, but reports, and many comments from russians living abroad or within russia indicate that I am right.
How many of these Russians have been both conscripted, and are speaking freely, either to you personally, or to the press?
The formula of war changes when you have skin in the game. I don't see the ones abroad running home to enlist, and I don't see the ones at home speaking freely, because of fear of consequences.
So your position is that Germany will find a reason to sanction Poland because Poland have been accidentally bombed by the Russian Federation? Sorry, I'm struggling to follow. Are you sure?
Perhaps you are still championing the dated notion that Germany is over exposed to the Russian energy market and thus is in thrall to the Russian Federation? I thought since the Nord Stream exploderised that was no longer really the case.
Cant find the link but apparently german carmakers expect to be back in about 5 years time (there is a clause in their exit contracts that they will be allowed to take back their assets after that amount of time).
> An unusual clause in their exit deals allows both Renault and Nissan to buy back their Russian assets within the next six years
> These facts suggest that the apparent exit of both companies from Russia is reluctant and largely symbolic, with both optimistic that sanctions will be lifted at some point in the next few years, allowing them to seamlessly re-enter the Russian market
Of course they will re-enter the Russian market. That was never in doubt, and it’s a very smart move to sign an exit deal allowing them to swiftly re-enter the market when it’s ready with all their places of operations nicely maintained for them. It seems that the people who signed that deal on the Russian side where negotiating from a position of weakness?
The issue is if they will re-enter a market with Putin at its head and Ukraine subjugated. That seems increasingly unlikely.
sorry but I fail to see what that article has to do with the discussion at play. I really would suggest losing the cryptic veneer and making your points a little more plainly because you've merely left me confused.
At one point we're talking about a missile landing in Poland then suddenly Germany is chastising Poland for some inexplicable reason and now two multi-national car manufacturers have buy-back clauses to lessen the potential impact of their losses from having to dump operations in Russia.
I'm really not seeing a biting narrative that connects these dots.
The official stance of Polish state TV and the leading politician is that Germany is Poland's biggest enemy. It's partly empty rhetoric aimed at the older population (the main electorate of the currently ruling right-wing party) and partly the perception that bigger EU countries try to bully everyone else (even France got upset over the recent public help issue).
The core of the issue in this particular case is that the ruling party tried to completely take over Polish courts in ways that were illegal both according to Polish and European law. The EU justly said they won't send the Next Generation EU money until Poland fixes this. The Polish Prime minister would agree to this, but the minister of justice said "over my dead body" - and without him the ruling party will not be able to have a majority rule. So the Polish ruling party accuses the EU, and the EU accuses them. Interesting to see how it plays out. In the meantime Poland is losing millions of euros because of one guy's big ego.
Relax, NATO is not made of barbarians, but Russia will pay for it in other ways than nukes and bombs. They’ll just remain in the dark ages for a bit longer. Like North Korea and Cuba. Unless of course their friends in NATO will try and weasel them back on the economic scene.
Of course it's valuable. Our air defenses were, if not evaded, pierced. Biden's "fully prepared" and "every single inch" warning was challenged. That, in turn, lays groundwork for intimidating e.g. the Baltics.
It’s certainly better in my mind, who knows how Russia will take it. Even with missiles you are still interfering with the attacks. That’ll raise aggression against NATO.
If we don't interfere with the attacks at all, then aren't we effectively letting them get away with attacking a NATO state? And if we do that, won't they get even bolder?
One thing that the US could do, without getting into a direct conflict, would be providing Ukraine access to more advanced weapons that it's been hesitant to give earlier. No direct conflict, but sending a message to Russia that actions have consequences and those consequences aren't good for their already-uphill war.
Cruise missiles doesn't fly in a duet. AA missiles on other hand are often fired in pairs to increase the change of successful interception.
> strengthens the theory the Ukranians intercepted
If there was a cruise missile (what it needed to do there? hit a Polish tractor? Because it makes sense?) then it would be or a giant hole much bigger than that tiny one on the photos or it would be found more-less intact somewhere near. Yet we have only one video of the tractor and a couple photos of an unknown debris.
> false flag desperation pretty unlikely
This type of operations are ... coordinated with partners, as Russians would say.
Personally, between false flag, Ukrainian AA and Russian cruise missile my Occam says it was Ukraine AA doing whatever they did yet ended in Poland.
BTW all AA missiles have a self-liquidator which triggers by a command from the ground station OR automatically on a given altitude. For two AA missiles to go who knows where and not to self-liquidate is a sign of anything but normal. Which begs the question where are photos of the second hit?
NB: despite what even the first report claimed what missiles hit a grain storage - there are no photos of it yet.
> "The Ukraine" is a bit of a tell.
Oh, I knew you will get triggered, it was a low hanging fruit. How often do you wake up and think "Today is the day when my country should be written THAT way in a language what doesn't have any resemblance to my own. By the way only 1% of population of my country even know that language and 1% of that 1% could even understand the difference"? Did you ever wondered who guessed that change to AP style guide?
What do you mean by "this"? Do you mean the attack on Poland, the continuing war on Ukraine, or mutually assured destruction in general? What do you mean by "deescalated"? Do you mean someone should surrender? Who and why would they?
The West largely took the "deescalate" approach when Russia invaded Georgia, seized part of Moldova, and took the Donbas then Crimea. It's very clear that these sorts of deescalations also serve to embolden future attempts.
Ala Ender's Game, the best deescalation may be to give the bully a spanking they'll never come back from.
"the best deescalation may be to give the bully a spanking they'll never come back from"
Assuming that works without sparking a nuclear war, that might be a real option... but there's a very real risk of a nuclear war (accidental or otherwise) breaking out over this.
Just how much nuclear chicken are NATO and Russia willing to play?
I'm afraid the world is going to find out before long.
There's a risk of nuclear war in not doing anything, too.
When someone gets blackmailed, it's rarely good to give in, because that tells the blackmailer they've got leverage. They get $100 out of you, and you're back to square one; they can demand another $100 now knowing it's worth at least that much. Eventually you wind up having to say no, and the consequence you were trying to avoid happens anyways.
Nuclear blackmail is the same. At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and say "nope, you can't take that". If it's not the Ukranian border, it's the Polish one in a few years.
Russia is free at any time to withdraw their forces. If Russia launches a single nuke, at any point, that is their fault, their choice, and their responsibility.
You don't have the right attitude. You have to have the mindset that even nuclear war is preferable to rolling over for Russia time and time again. Ironically, this is the attitude that best helps PREVENT nuclear war.
> Assuming that works without sparking a nuclear war, that might be a real option... but there's a very real risk of a nuclear war (accidental or otherwise) breaking out over this.
If you aren't ever willing to militarily confront Russia, even over an actual attack, because of the possibility of nuclear war, you thereby grant Russia—or any other nuclear power now or in the future—unlimited license for aggression and conquest.
So would you have us cede Ukraine, and Poland, and Lithuania, and Estonia to Putin? Because any direct conflict with Russia risks nuclear war? You can't give into nuclear blackmail because otherwise it makes a nuclear war _more likely_, as there will be an asymmetry in the willingness to use nuclear weapons.
Compensation is likely warranted but no one really wants to 'kill two of theirs to payback for two of ours', do they? That's not likely to lead to justice.
Giving up freedom to buy security does not work. Whatever temporary security you gain will be taken away from you tomorrow, because you've shown them that you will not resist.
Appeasement does not work, especially when you're dealing with a fascist state. You can sell out Poland today, but you will still not stop Russia from "accidentally" attacking the Baltic States tomorrow.
That's a very subjective (and I assume unpopular) opinion. Western nations especially do not share you views, with popular addages being "better die on your feet than live on your knees," "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," etc.
Not that I think appeasement would work, but I think a chance of freedom is more important than a life of servitude for a lot of the west (most?)
You're talking about the end of the world. Pretty much everybody dying. All of the cultural products of our civilization: music, art, history, philosophy, architecture, math, writing... lost... perhaps for all time. For the survivors (if there are any): unimaginable horror and suffering compared to which virtually anything would be better. Most likely most of the survivors will just kill themselves.
It's horror on a scale that's just unimaginable to virtually anyone who hasn't been through a major war.. and it'll be infinitely worse than that.
It's just sheer insanity that we're getting so close to that and some people are just egging us on to total destruction.
One person is egging us on to total destruction, Putin. Who has talked about nukes but him? Everything you listed here except math will also be destroyed and replaced if Russia is successful. You will never know what’s true again.
So if Putin wanted the entire world except China and NK, you’d give it to him to stop from destroying everything?
War as practiced by real-world entities (of which Russia is one) does not work this way. We are talking about a barbaric, incompetent and highly belligerent enemy. You can't be thinking in terms of individual houses or short-term outcomes in situations like this.
From the polls that I’ve seen it precisely the people on whose houses bombs are falling that want the war to end - including by negotiation - whereas those living far away want to continue the fight.
Deescalation increases the risk of nuclear war. It's a hostage situation. There's a reason that the official policy of most governments is not to pay ransoms -- paying ransoms reduces the risk in the short term but increases the risk of further hostage situations, increasing the risk in the long term.
Geopolitics isn't a hostage situation, big influential states always project power on smaller ones, and the smaller ones always have fewer options to act independently on the world scene. That's why diplomacy exists as an alternative to power projection in the first place.
First of all, deescalation and dialogue is what already prevented nuclear war several times since nuclear weapons were invented. We could go as far as saying that it’s the one single thing we know that works.
Claiming that it’s precisely this DE-escalation which increases risk is akin to claiming that having sex increases the risk of terminal virginity. Seriously, what were you even thinking when you wrote that?
Second of all, what does this situation have to do with hostage taking?! Who is the hostage? What is the ransom? Who is the party paying it?
What you might not want to understand is that we were patient with them long enough. They did this in Georgia and Moldova and Ukraine before.
What it shows is that they dont stop. Now they want an entire very big country. So this is the line in the sand. Let them cross this and Poland and Romania might be next. And then maybe Hungary and Germany. And so on.
An wanna be empire/dictator does not stop at your border because they like you or they have mercy. They stop for reinforcements and then move on to you.
That is such an extremely low-effort proposal that it would already be rejected by kids in primary school.
De-escalation happens gradually and with steps taken by both sides. You may have noticed that there’s mixed signals coming from the US since Russia retreated from Kherson.
I don't think this was intentional as real attack on Poland as that would take course which will not end up good either for Russia or for rest of the world. I see this as accident, until more information comes. And given similar accidents before, like India-Pakistan missile incident from this year [1] or crash of a drone in Zagreb [2] in March of this year - this will yield nothing.
Edit: Another data point re accident: MH17 [3], Iran Air Flight 655 [4]. Both of those still yielded nothing.
That's very likely. But of course, an accidental attack is still an attack. Will Russia stop attacking Poland and Ukraine? Doubtful, unless NATO makes it stop.
Otherwise we can wait for the next "accident" where Russia fires missiles into NATO countries and murders people. All the while they're committing war crimes in Ukraine, day by day, for the world to see.
These countries have been committing war crimes against one another for nine years now throughout this history of this proxy war.
Why should we start caring now or sacrifice global stability because of two errant rockets? Your fear-based rhetoric about other NATO countries being targeted because of two errant rockets (rockets are unguided munitions btw, not cruise missiles) is ridiculous.
One missile just crossing over the border is an accident. It's kind of hard to see how two missiles could cross the border by more than a few miles unintentionally. I mean, we are talking about Russian cruise missiles, so maybe their INUs are that bad, but still...
We _are_ talking about russian missiles, thats why no one is surprised they errored and are convinced this was an accident. The real question tho is why did our defence systems fail to intercept them?
They fell right at the border (barely 6-7km away from Ukraine), I'd assume that there is no air defense prepared to shoot a target that close to the border before it could hit the ground. Air defense isn't impenetrable.
Targeting error is always a possibility. Somebody read the map wrong and chose the wrong target without realizing it.
No matter how much technology advances, warfare still involves incompetent idiots making choices under pressure based on partial and incorrect information. Sometimes those choices go wrong in a catastrophic way.
They're not missiles they are rockets - unguided munitions. It's easily understandable how two out of one-hundred plus rockets misses its target. In fact it's more understandable than all one-hundred hitting their targets dead on.
"Russia has intentionally conducted an act of war (which did no serious damage nor improved Russia's strategic position) on an enemy that it cannot possibly defeat, for unknown reasons" doesn't really stand up to Occam's Razor, when "human error" is also on the menu.
> doesn't really stand up to Occam's Razor, when "human error" is also on the menu.
In questions like this, there should be some demonstration of attempts to avoid human errors. Here we have a massive attack on the whole territory, including regions at the border. We can wait for next actions from Russia - if they'd bring apologies and some good offers - but meantime it's a good idea to keep reaction going. After all, it's the approach proven to be most reliable when dealing with current Russia.
>
In questions like this, there should be some demonstration of attempts to avoid human errors.
If I told you that a surgeon made two fatal mistakes, you can't conclude from that information whether or not he's made a lot, a little, or an average number of attempts to avoid human error in his work.
Another possibility is that it's intentionally borderline "oops or maybe not oops" to have plausible deniability while knowing Poland is going to take it extremely seriously. This lets them test Poland's and NATO's reaction to see how much they will tolerate and how eager NATO actually is to mobilize its military.
Can be one Russian X-101 and Ukrainian S300 which intercepted it. Could also explain how it landed on Polish territory: it is possible that interception only damaged Russian missile but took it off the course.
I agree, it's hard to tell if it was intentional. However, it might have been designed to be that way, as a test of the resolve of the West (US, really). It's just impossible to tell, which means we have to respond in a way that will stop Putin from pushing into Poland and other places, yet not pushing too hard on him that WW3 starts.
Haven't we already been doing this? Here's a better idea - how about the US and everyone else GTFO of Ukraine and stop meddling in Eastern Europe? Biden and Kerry and the US have been doing it since the fall of the Berlin Wall and now we risk WWIII because these greedy politicians can't get enough kick backs from the US military industrial complex.
So far the way the war is going I don't think we desperately need to respond to these missiles, and it may be a gambit to try to draw NATO more directly into the war for Russian domestic political consumption.
Putin is losing right now, just continue to let him keep losing. That is going to be the course of action right now which is most damaging to him.
We can still send HIMARS to Ukraine and support them defeating Putin, we don't have to negotiate.
And there's historical precedent for this since a million or so Vietnamese died defeating us in a proxy war (and now we're friends and like buying Pho for lunch).
You also sound like you're regurgitating a talking point. That one works better against arguments that we should do some kind of negotiated settlement that gives Putin territory and rewards him for launching this war.
> That one works better against arguments that we should do some kind of negotiated settlement that gives Putin territory and rewards him for launching this war.
Your original comment called for staying the course in response to an escalation by Putin. That sounds much like rewarding him to me.
War has a military and humanitarian side. On the humanitarian side, I agree with you. On the military side, dragging out this war is in the best interest of NATO, because Russia is getting more exhausted by the day.
Let's all hope it yields nothing - the alternative risks article five and global peace. While I'm sure the war hawks in DC and in the white house / capitol building would love to start another world war, I'm not so eager to be thrust into one. I'm sure that sentiment is the same for most of the readers of HN.
It was an accident like the JDAM bombs that accidentally hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and the Turkish F16 dawning a Russian Su-24 near the Syria-Turkish border in 2015.
What this will only accomplish is another military aid package to Ukraine and who knows what it will be this time? Longer range ATACMS and MLRS rockets for HIMARS? Also THAAD and Patriot deployments to Poland.
S300 is defensive missile. It makes no sense to waste it like that when you have plenty of other missiles in your arsenal. Those reports were from ukrainian rockets which failed to intercept attacking rockets. Ukraine does not want to accept this fact that they kill their own citizens with their own missiles, so they spread that kind of misinformation. BBC is not trustworthy source as UK fights on Ukraine side.
Don't you think it's kind of ironic to have title "Russia’s stock of weapons running low" just when Russia bombarding entire Ukraine with hundreds of rockets as I write it.
This BBC article has "Posts on social media have claimed these S-300 missiles have been repurposed by Russia to hit land targets" source. Sorry, this is nonsense source in my opinion.
What does or doesn't make sense doens't really matter if there is literal evidence of Russia firing S-300 missiles in ground to ground strikes.
> Those reports were from ukrainian rockets which failed to intercept attacking rockets
This doesn't track either, if that were the case it would be incredibly suspicious that these intercepts are failing and just through sheer bad luck that the failed intercepts consistently land on Ukrainian forces or residential areas at incredibly high rates.
> Don't you think it's kind of ironic to have title "Russia’s stock of weapons running low" just when Russia bombarding entire Ukraine with hundreds of rockets as I write it.
No, whatever Russia may constitute necessary reserves to actually fight a war with NATO and simply running out of missiles are two different things. Much like the reports of Russia going to the DPRK to ask for assistance in providing artillery shells, it is literally not the case that Russia is running out of artillery shells, but more likely Russia seeks to backstop the current usage to maintain necessary strategic reserves.
And it doesn't really contradict the notion that Russia is in fact running out of PGM's, given that the S-300's are being used for ground attack, which Russia has massive stockpiles of and aren't really needed in the current conflict.
Correct, the S-300 is a sophisticated missile designed to intercept highly maneuverable airplanes that have a number of defenses. The idea that you would shoot such an expensive missile at a fixed ground target - in this case, a farm along the Polish border, where it hit a tractor and killed the tractor driver -- is crazy, and of course completely incompatible with the "Russia running out of missiles" narrative.
What is much more likely is the simple explanation that these are AA missiles that Ukraine fired, trying to intercept a Russian missile or drone, and they missed their target, hitting the farm.
That an AA missile failed to intercept and caused damage to infrastructure is completely normal for AA systems and has happened several times before -- an AA missile missed its target and hit an apartment building in Kharkov and another hit an office complex in Kiev. AA systems don't have a 100% interception rate, and those that don't intercept fall and cause damage in inconvenient places.
As is usually the case, the simplest explanation is often the most plausible, whereas the most inflammatory explanation is what is promoted in media. Note that even Poland is urging people to remain calm and wait for an investigation, so they are actually more responsible than Western media.
> completely incompatible with the "Russia running out of missiles" narrative
I haven't seen anyone saying that Russia is running out of S-300. Other precision systems yes, but not S-300, which would explain the reports of them using S-300 to target land targets both in Kharkiv and Kherson.
No idea what happened here btw, just pointing out why they might be using them. Also, mistakes and malfunctions happen.
There are no credible reports of S-300 being used to target any land system. The S-300 would be a very poor missile to use this way, and it would make no sense to waste it blowing up unimportant targets, when Russia is still sending large waves of cheaper-to-produce missiles at strategically important systems like power plants.
You would need to believe that an expensive missile is intentionally being used to blow up a city intersection somewhere or an office building while cheaper missiles are being used to knock out transformers and military barracks. That fails basic internal consistency checks.
There are, however, plenty of credible reports of Ukrainian S-300s damaging random infrastructure in these areas (and in other areas), always in the aftermath of drone attacks and cruise missile attacks when the AA systems are activated. The randomness of the targets and their distance from any strategic target is evidence that they are AA misses that missed.
Then we have the physical evidence, that this is an S-300 missile.
British Military Intelligence is a credible source in the same way the Ukraine MOD is a credible source - they are participants in the conflict and have a propaganda mission to fulfill. In that case, you must believe that Russia was shelling its own nuclear power plant and that a Ukrainian woman destroyed a drone with a pickle jar.
If that's credible to you, knock yourself out, I am not going to try to convince you, but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, non-aligned sources such as Indian/Mexican/Brazilian to be neutral, rather than looking to nations that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict as being neutral.
I have lived through a lot of wars, and seen a lot of cheerleading for wars, especially in Western media. I remember the stories of Iraquis taking incubators out of Kuwait, of viagra being given to Libya's soldiers to rape women, etc. Western media and government institutions are often a spin machine for war - not all, there are anti-war outlets and reporters doing good work, but when you are talking about ministry of defense statements, you don't look for nations waging proxy wars as sources of reliable info about the conflict in question.
I would apply the same level of credibility to Russian MoD statements as I would to British MoD.
> but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, Indian/Mexican/Brazilian media as being credible, but not Western media as they are influenced by governments that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict.
If we apply the same thinking to those countries, why would the Indian media be credible when they rely on Russia for a lot of military equipment and now for cheap oil? Or Brazil when they buy Russian helicopters?
I understand what you're saying [the original version of your comment], but it's hard to find credible sources when everyone has reasons to side with one side or the other. Who to trust?
India/Brazil/Mexico trade with Russia for some goods and with the US for others. That's what makes them non-aligned -- they do business with both sides. By the way, this is like 2/3 of the global population, so you don't need to look far to find non-aligned nations.
This idea that if you are not sanctioning Russia you are not "neutral" -- basically a "with us or against us" view is one that non-aligned nations have historically rejected, and frankly it's not one that I subscribe to, either.
You may be interested in listening to the speech that Indonesia just gave at the G20 summit, condemning the West for this "with us or against us" attitude and refusing to take sides. Indonesia is also non-aligned, and I would give much more credence to their MoD reports than to anything coming out of the five eyes/NATO orbit, simply because Indonesia is not pushing for any outcome, nor are they trying to generate support in their domestic populations for aid packages to Ukraine. They literally have no dog in this fight, and so are much more credible.
Just because a country is non-aligned, it doesn't mean it's a credible source.
For example, India relies on Russia because they have lots of Soviet equipment. This is more than just simple trading and obviously they'll think twice before making their main weapons supplier angry. Knowing this, you should question the credibility of any report they make, after all it's not in their interest to have a bad relationship with Russia.
From the list of non-aligned countries you mentioned on the comment I replied to, maybe Mexico would be a more credible source on what's happening in Ukraine? Not sure, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
The sanctions, the "with us or against us", etc, is a different question. What I'm trying to say is it's not in the interest of some of the non-aligned countries to be impartial when talking about this conflict. They are credible as anyone else.
The reports of S-300 being used to target land targets originated from the same sources saying that a fragment found is from a S-300 missile. It's people on Twitter and Telegram, some of them "analysts" or people that seem to have sources in the different militaries (at least the ones that are usually right about what they say). I'm not saying that they are credible sources, but it's not like the picture of the S-300 fragment was released by an official source. We should keep this in mind when deciding what to (or not to) believe.
I think it's a mistake to assume they wouldn't use S-300 because of its cost. It also doesn't make any sense to use expensive missiles to hit kid playgrounds, but it happened before Russia had cheap swarms of Iranian drones. It doesn't make sense to launch salvos of not very precise rockets from helicopters, but that's exactly what both sides are doing for close-ish combat support. Point is, and without knowing for sure if Russia is using S-300 for land targets or not, both sides have used expensive weapons even when it didn't make sense financially.
On a side note, many of today's strikes seem to have used Kh-101 (edit: I meant to write 3M-54, not Kh-101) cruise missiles, which are not cheap ( https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/yw737b/the_m... ). They're using expensive stuff too, not just "cheaper-to-produce missiles".
Regarding the damage from S-300 systems, yes, I've seen videos from Ukraine and Russia (Belgorod) where air defence damages some stuff. I agree that it's possible that what hit Poland was an Ukrainian S-300 or a mix of a Russian missile/drone and Ukrainian S-300. And yes, it could be a Russian missile too... even if it was not done on purpose, shit happens sometimes.
I'm not a weapons expert or have special sources, so this is where I'll leave the thread. I just wanted to point out that the "running out of missiles" narrative was about other weapon systems, not about S-300s, of which they probably still have lots because it was an important part of the Soviet Union air defence.
Even if it was a Ukrainian missile the reason it was fired was because of the Russian invasion. Firing a missile in defence and accidentally hurting someone is much more forgivable.
The Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk autonomous regions have high percentages of ethnic Russians and voted for Russian sovereignty. In Donetsk 99.2% voted for Russian sovereignty.
Interesting. If that turns out to be true then Western European media are going to look a bit silly and untrustworthy. But nothing new there: by the time reliable information is available the media has usually moved onto the next "breaking" story. In any case, whoever's missile it was, it was presumably an accident and I don't suppose any diplomatic or military people are getting very excited about it whatever the noise on social media.
Did you reply to the wrong message? Or did I reply to the wrong message? Your reaction is confusing.
Anyway, latest headlines are saying things like "Poland missile ‘unlikely’ to have been fired from Russia" so the media did, in fact, manage to correct the misleading initial reports within about 12 hours.
I definitely not erring on Zelensky's side, that's for sure. I'm trying to stay neutral, but Russian propaganda so far was much more convincing to me compared to Ukrainian one, so I might err on Putin's side despite not liking him at all.
Except they should had self-liquidated in the air, not through lithobraking. And for two missiles in a row?
Want some real conspiracy theory?
Two missiles means they were launched from the same site. Two missiles failed to self-liquidate is not very probable, means they had the SL system disabled.
Now, even if there was a Russian missile - they were launched West and let to fall whereever it would be.
Note, AFAIR S300 has a radio commanded self-liquidation, in addition to a built-in one on altitude and miss.
If there was only one missile I could've believed it was a malfunction somewhere. Not with a two.
NATO could make the case that Russia needs to stop shooting missiles since they cannot aim.
Alternatively, NATO could say that they can shoot down any Russian missiles since Russia cannot be trusted and has bad aim.
It's really suspicious that two missiles hit Poland. If it were one missile, it could be due to some kind of component failure that caused the missile to go off course.
Two missiles are not likely to both fail, so that suggests Poland was targeted on purpose.
This is right by the border and not close to any "valuable" infrastructure. Clearly the lives of two people and their property are valuable! But wartime calculus has a heavy discount factor...
How do you know it wasn't a Ukrainian AA missile? Someone posted a telegram photo suggesting it was a S300 AA missile [1]
What scares me is that everyone is speculating and jumping to conclusions without hard facts. Behaving this way can easily escalate some trivial situation into something more serious.
Russia is increasingly using their S300s to attack ground targets.
It's a bit of a waste of a sophisticated rocket, and the warhead is smaller, but the ones they fire tend to be reaching EOL anyway due to age. That, or lack of better alternatives.
> What scares me is that everyone is speculating and jumping to conclusions without hard facts.
Stanisław Jerzy Lec said that it's shameful to suspect when you're certain. Russia has a well established reputation, so while investigation is needed, we can safely assume it's Russian rockets. We of course will be surprised if it happen to be false, but before that it should be logical to follow most likely explanation.
Consequence of overconsumption fear agenda pushed by media for years.
I honestly don't know ho to defend myself about that? Being ignorant to news is probably not good idea. But finding relevant information nowadays require significant amount of time. That is luxury that most people cannot effort so I guess majority easily jump to any kind of trends.
Cruise missiles and rockets are not the same. One is an unguided munition and the other is not.
Nothing suggests Poland was targeted on purpose besides your fear-based rhetoric / war mongering.
"Russia cannot be trusted and has bad aim".
This war has turned everyone into a bunch of Russophobes and has really helped to shine a light on how many racist-ass people live in Eastern Europe. Not really surprising though since they hero worship this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera - in Ukraine.
As others have said, I suspect this was in error. However, there is still diplomatic work to be done even if this was an accident. Specifically, Russia must make a public statement confirming that this was in error, apologize unequivocally, and offer some form of meaningful compensation. The risk of no response is that it will make Poland and NATO look weak, and Russia is known for prodding and provoking to see what it can get away with. Better to nip this in the bud through diplomatic means to avoid any lingering doubts about Polish/NATO readiness to defend itself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You really think the US would take the risk to murder some polish people? For what gain? To make the world realize that Putin is doing what everyone already knows he's doing?
This makes no sense.
Today Ukrainians shot down 73 of 90 Russian rockets, the largest Russian rocket offensive so far. Could be stray Russian or Ukrainian rockets, or bloody grain dust explosion. Wait, Nato knows what they are doing. Pity that we depend entirely on Americans to find out what happened.
And immediately starts posting crazy propaganda talking points the Russians have been dispersing for months. I guess they could be volunteering as propagandists, but there's not a meaningful difference in being paid to do it and doing it voluntarily. It's propaganda for Russia in both cases.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
> it's kinda unsurprising that dang and the likes wouldn't sniff them out
And you say this because? Dang is doing a very good job in general, but I can't imagine him intervening in this case. How is he going to check if a given user is a Putin's troll or just a normal citizen afraid of escalation? Heck, even Musk suggested surrendering a large part of Ukraine just to get an illusion of peace. So how on Earth could any moderator do this kind of job in a reliable way?
Sky News in UK is quoting 'security experts' commenting on photos showing wreckage that looks like from S-300 system. Only Ukraine is operating these within range of the border so entirely plausible this was an interception of a missile aimed at a target near border. In this context the comments from some eastern European and Ukraine itself are irresponsible. At least Poland and other NATO partners are urging caution.
It is still security threat for NATO member. No meter what landed on Poland it was consequence of Russian shelling in proximity of Ukrainian-Polish border.
233 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 78.7 ms ] threadgotchu
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/explosion-kills-two-pol...
"Polish media reported that two people died Tuesday afternoon after a projectile struck an area where grain was drying in Przewodów, a Polish village near the border with Ukraine."
ZET seems a legitimate source, but it's still a single journalist and some twitter posts.
More coverage at
https://wiadomosci.radiozet.pl/Polska/przewodow-rakiety-spad...
Occam's razor tells me that this was an accident, just like MH17 and Iran Air Flight 655 were.
Notice how neither Iran nor Malaysia 'escalated' in response to those attacks against them.
Mass mobilization on the multi-millions level would destroy his public support, and raising it was the whole reason for starting the war.
How many of these Russians have been both conscripted, and are speaking freely, either to you personally, or to the press?
The formula of war changes when you have skin in the game. I don't see the ones abroad running home to enlist, and I don't see the ones at home speaking freely, because of fear of consequences.
Perhaps you are still championing the dated notion that Germany is over exposed to the Russian energy market and thus is in thrall to the Russian Federation? I thought since the Nord Stream exploderised that was no longer really the case.
On a serious note, you may want to read about german, and other western, companies’ russia “exits”:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/11/03/are-western-brands...
Cant find the link but apparently german carmakers expect to be back in about 5 years time (there is a clause in their exit contracts that they will be allowed to take back their assets after that amount of time).
> These facts suggest that the apparent exit of both companies from Russia is reluctant and largely symbolic, with both optimistic that sanctions will be lifted at some point in the next few years, allowing them to seamlessly re-enter the Russian market
Of course they will re-enter the Russian market. That was never in doubt, and it’s a very smart move to sign an exit deal allowing them to swiftly re-enter the market when it’s ready with all their places of operations nicely maintained for them. It seems that the people who signed that deal on the Russian side where negotiating from a position of weakness?
The issue is if they will re-enter a market with Putin at its head and Ukraine subjugated. That seems increasingly unlikely.
At one point we're talking about a missile landing in Poland then suddenly Germany is chastising Poland for some inexplicable reason and now two multi-national car manufacturers have buy-back clauses to lessen the potential impact of their losses from having to dump operations in Russia.
I'm really not seeing a biting narrative that connects these dots.
The core of the issue in this particular case is that the ruling party tried to completely take over Polish courts in ways that were illegal both according to Polish and European law. The EU justly said they won't send the Next Generation EU money until Poland fixes this. The Polish Prime minister would agree to this, but the minister of justice said "over my dead body" - and without him the ruling party will not be able to have a majority rule. So the Polish ruling party accuses the EU, and the EU accuses them. Interesting to see how it plays out. In the meantime Poland is losing millions of euros because of one guy's big ego.
Strengthen air defences. In practice, this means placing SAMs closer to Russia, which isn’t exactly stabilising.
Give longer ranged munitions, like ATACMS, to Ukraine, along with intelligence pinpointing missile launch sites and let nature take its course.
How do you know that? Maybe it was intentional to test out how Nato responds.
Of course it's valuable. Our air defenses were, if not evaded, pierced. Biden's "fully prepared" and "every single inch" warning was challenged. That, in turn, lays groundwork for intimidating e.g. the Baltics.
If we don't interfere with the attacks at all, then aren't we effectively letting them get away with attacking a NATO state? And if we do that, won't they get even bolder?
If anything, it gives NATO a fig leaf to give the Ukranians weapons systems they've held off thus far on, like ATACMS.
Cui prodest?
Hint: where else S300 are in service, besides the Ukraine?
That aside, two missiles supposedly hit; if one's an S-300, that strengthens the theory the Ukranians intercepted a Russian cruise missile.
The Ukranians success on the battlefield makes false flag desperation pretty unlikely, especially with the risks to their aid in getting caught.
Whatever happened was almost certainly unintentional.
Cruise missiles doesn't fly in a duet. AA missiles on other hand are often fired in pairs to increase the change of successful interception.
> strengthens the theory the Ukranians intercepted
If there was a cruise missile (what it needed to do there? hit a Polish tractor? Because it makes sense?) then it would be or a giant hole much bigger than that tiny one on the photos or it would be found more-less intact somewhere near. Yet we have only one video of the tractor and a couple photos of an unknown debris.
> false flag desperation pretty unlikely
This type of operations are ... coordinated with partners, as Russians would say.
Personally, between false flag, Ukrainian AA and Russian cruise missile my Occam says it was Ukraine AA doing whatever they did yet ended in Poland.
BTW all AA missiles have a self-liquidator which triggers by a command from the ground station OR automatically on a given altitude. For two AA missiles to go who knows where and not to self-liquidate is a sign of anything but normal. Which begs the question where are photos of the second hit?
NB: despite what even the first report claimed what missiles hit a grain storage - there are no photos of it yet.
> "The Ukraine" is a bit of a tell.
Oh, I knew you will get triggered, it was a low hanging fruit. How often do you wake up and think "Today is the day when my country should be written THAT way in a language what doesn't have any resemblance to my own. By the way only 1% of population of my country even know that language and 1% of that 1% could even understand the difference"? Did you ever wondered who guessed that change to AP style guide?
Bucha and other events didn't raise an eyebrow here. It's just business-as-usual for Muscovy :/
What do you mean by "this"? Do you mean the attack on Poland, the continuing war on Ukraine, or mutually assured destruction in general? What do you mean by "deescalated"? Do you mean someone should surrender? Who and why would they?
Because the alternative is everybody dies.
The West largely took the "deescalate" approach when Russia invaded Georgia, seized part of Moldova, and took the Donbas then Crimea. It's very clear that these sorts of deescalations also serve to embolden future attempts.
Ala Ender's Game, the best deescalation may be to give the bully a spanking they'll never come back from.
Assuming that works without sparking a nuclear war, that might be a real option... but there's a very real risk of a nuclear war (accidental or otherwise) breaking out over this.
Just how much nuclear chicken are NATO and Russia willing to play?
I'm afraid the world is going to find out before long.
When someone gets blackmailed, it's rarely good to give in, because that tells the blackmailer they've got leverage. They get $100 out of you, and you're back to square one; they can demand another $100 now knowing it's worth at least that much. Eventually you wind up having to say no, and the consequence you were trying to avoid happens anyways.
Nuclear blackmail is the same. At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand and say "nope, you can't take that". If it's not the Ukranian border, it's the Polish one in a few years.
If you aren't ever willing to militarily confront Russia, even over an actual attack, because of the possibility of nuclear war, you thereby grant Russia—or any other nuclear power now or in the future—unlimited license for aggression and conquest.
So, no justice fo the dead. "Sorry".
I'm glad that pacifists don't play a role in politics where it matters, or we'd long ago given up all hope of freedom.
This is a "we had to destroy the village to save it" type of situation.
There's no freedom if everyone is dead.
Appeasement does not work, especially when you're dealing with a fascist state. You can sell out Poland today, but you will still not stop Russia from "accidentally" attacking the Baltic States tomorrow.
Whatever you imagine that's going to look like, it's going to be better than the world ending.
Not that I think appeasement would work, but I think a chance of freedom is more important than a life of servitude for a lot of the west (most?)
It's horror on a scale that's just unimaginable to virtually anyone who hasn't been through a major war.. and it'll be infinitely worse than that.
It's just sheer insanity that we're getting so close to that and some people are just egging us on to total destruction.
So if Putin wanted the entire world except China and NK, you’d give it to him to stop from destroying everything?
People hate on Biden now, but if he lets something like that slide, he’d be torn apart on the White House lawn.
There are no winners in an all-out nuclear war.
Russian policy of the last N decades is to start a conflict, scare everyone about nuclear war, then "de-escalate" and "reset".
This is fine, so long as the bombs aren't falling on your house.
Makes sense when one stops to think about it.
First of all, deescalation and dialogue is what already prevented nuclear war several times since nuclear weapons were invented. We could go as far as saying that it’s the one single thing we know that works.
Claiming that it’s precisely this DE-escalation which increases risk is akin to claiming that having sex increases the risk of terminal virginity. Seriously, what were you even thinking when you wrote that?
Second of all, what does this situation have to do with hostage taking?! Who is the hostage? What is the ransom? Who is the party paying it?
What it shows is that they dont stop. Now they want an entire very big country. So this is the line in the sand. Let them cross this and Poland and Romania might be next. And then maybe Hungary and Germany. And so on.
An wanna be empire/dictator does not stop at your border because they like you or they have mercy. They stop for reinforcements and then move on to you.
De-escalation happens gradually and with steps taken by both sides. You may have noticed that there’s mixed signals coming from the US since Russia retreated from Kherson.
Edit: Another data point re accident: MH17 [3], Iran Air Flight 655 [4]. Both of those still yielded nothing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_mi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Zagreb_Tu-141_crash
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Otherwise we can wait for the next "accident" where Russia fires missiles into NATO countries and murders people. All the while they're committing war crimes in Ukraine, day by day, for the world to see.
Why should we start caring now or sacrifice global stability because of two errant rockets? Your fear-based rhetoric about other NATO countries being targeted because of two errant rockets (rockets are unguided munitions btw, not cruise missiles) is ridiculous.
Stop being a war monger.
Given the state of the Russian armed forces, it's not entirely surprising their missile accuracy is in the tens of miles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IwqmezeSuQ
No matter how much technology advances, warfare still involves incompetent idiots making choices under pressure based on partial and incorrect information. Sometimes those choices go wrong in a catastrophic way.
In questions like this, there should be some demonstration of attempts to avoid human errors. Here we have a massive attack on the whole territory, including regions at the border. We can wait for next actions from Russia - if they'd bring apologies and some good offers - but meantime it's a good idea to keep reaction going. After all, it's the approach proven to be most reliable when dealing with current Russia.
If I told you that a surgeon made two fatal mistakes, you can't conclude from that information whether or not he's made a lot, a little, or an average number of attempts to avoid human error in his work.
Putin is losing right now, just continue to let him keep losing. That is going to be the course of action right now which is most damaging to him.
Unfortunately Ukrainians are going to have to do a lot of dying for us. We should definitely remember that debt in the future.
And there's historical precedent for this since a million or so Vietnamese died defeating us in a proxy war (and now we're friends and like buying Pho for lunch).
You also sound like you're regurgitating a talking point. That one works better against arguments that we should do some kind of negotiated settlement that gives Putin territory and rewards him for launching this war.
Your original comment called for staying the course in response to an escalation by Putin. That sounds much like rewarding him to me.
What this will only accomplish is another military aid package to Ukraine and who knows what it will be this time? Longer range ATACMS and MLRS rockets for HIMARS? Also THAAD and Patriot deployments to Poland.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russia-now-firing-s-30... https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-attack-kills-dozens-of-...
But anyway Poland border is too far away from the launch sites for S300 even if someone would try to do that.
There have been plently of reports of Russia using S-300 missile systems in the ground attack configuration.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63247287
And it is not unreasonable that the missiles may have originated from Belarus, since Russia has sortied out of the country throughout the war.
Don't you think it's kind of ironic to have title "Russia’s stock of weapons running low" just when Russia bombarding entire Ukraine with hundreds of rockets as I write it.
This BBC article has "Posts on social media have claimed these S-300 missiles have been repurposed by Russia to hit land targets" source. Sorry, this is nonsense source in my opinion.
> Those reports were from ukrainian rockets which failed to intercept attacking rockets
This doesn't track either, if that were the case it would be incredibly suspicious that these intercepts are failing and just through sheer bad luck that the failed intercepts consistently land on Ukrainian forces or residential areas at incredibly high rates.
> Don't you think it's kind of ironic to have title "Russia’s stock of weapons running low" just when Russia bombarding entire Ukraine with hundreds of rockets as I write it.
No, whatever Russia may constitute necessary reserves to actually fight a war with NATO and simply running out of missiles are two different things. Much like the reports of Russia going to the DPRK to ask for assistance in providing artillery shells, it is literally not the case that Russia is running out of artillery shells, but more likely Russia seeks to backstop the current usage to maintain necessary strategic reserves.
And it doesn't really contradict the notion that Russia is in fact running out of PGM's, given that the S-300's are being used for ground attack, which Russia has massive stockpiles of and aren't really needed in the current conflict.
What is much more likely is the simple explanation that these are AA missiles that Ukraine fired, trying to intercept a Russian missile or drone, and they missed their target, hitting the farm.
That an AA missile failed to intercept and caused damage to infrastructure is completely normal for AA systems and has happened several times before -- an AA missile missed its target and hit an apartment building in Kharkov and another hit an office complex in Kiev. AA systems don't have a 100% interception rate, and those that don't intercept fall and cause damage in inconvenient places.
As is usually the case, the simplest explanation is often the most plausible, whereas the most inflammatory explanation is what is promoted in media. Note that even Poland is urging people to remain calm and wait for an investigation, so they are actually more responsible than Western media.
I haven't seen anyone saying that Russia is running out of S-300. Other precision systems yes, but not S-300, which would explain the reports of them using S-300 to target land targets both in Kharkiv and Kherson.
No idea what happened here btw, just pointing out why they might be using them. Also, mistakes and malfunctions happen.
You would need to believe that an expensive missile is intentionally being used to blow up a city intersection somewhere or an office building while cheaper missiles are being used to knock out transformers and military barracks. That fails basic internal consistency checks.
There are, however, plenty of credible reports of Ukrainian S-300s damaging random infrastructure in these areas (and in other areas), always in the aftermath of drone attacks and cruise missile attacks when the AA systems are activated. The randomness of the targets and their distance from any strategic target is evidence that they are AA misses that missed.
Then we have the physical evidence, that this is an S-300 missile.
If that's credible to you, knock yourself out, I am not going to try to convince you, but it's not credible to people in most of the world, who would consider, for example, non-aligned sources such as Indian/Mexican/Brazilian to be neutral, rather than looking to nations that are arming/subsidizing one side of this conflict as being neutral.
I have lived through a lot of wars, and seen a lot of cheerleading for wars, especially in Western media. I remember the stories of Iraquis taking incubators out of Kuwait, of viagra being given to Libya's soldiers to rape women, etc. Western media and government institutions are often a spin machine for war - not all, there are anti-war outlets and reporters doing good work, but when you are talking about ministry of defense statements, you don't look for nations waging proxy wars as sources of reliable info about the conflict in question.
I would apply the same level of credibility to Russian MoD statements as I would to British MoD.
If we apply the same thinking to those countries, why would the Indian media be credible when they rely on Russia for a lot of military equipment and now for cheap oil? Or Brazil when they buy Russian helicopters?
I understand what you're saying [the original version of your comment], but it's hard to find credible sources when everyone has reasons to side with one side or the other. Who to trust?
This idea that if you are not sanctioning Russia you are not "neutral" -- basically a "with us or against us" view is one that non-aligned nations have historically rejected, and frankly it's not one that I subscribe to, either.
You may be interested in listening to the speech that Indonesia just gave at the G20 summit, condemning the West for this "with us or against us" attitude and refusing to take sides. Indonesia is also non-aligned, and I would give much more credence to their MoD reports than to anything coming out of the five eyes/NATO orbit, simply because Indonesia is not pushing for any outcome, nor are they trying to generate support in their domestic populations for aid packages to Ukraine. They literally have no dog in this fight, and so are much more credible.
For example, India relies on Russia because they have lots of Soviet equipment. This is more than just simple trading and obviously they'll think twice before making their main weapons supplier angry. Knowing this, you should question the credibility of any report they make, after all it's not in their interest to have a bad relationship with Russia.
You mentioned Indonesia. Sure, maybe non-aligned... but are they credible or impartial when they have a strong strong military cooperation with Russia? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Russia_relat...
From the list of non-aligned countries you mentioned on the comment I replied to, maybe Mexico would be a more credible source on what's happening in Ukraine? Not sure, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
The sanctions, the "with us or against us", etc, is a different question. What I'm trying to say is it's not in the interest of some of the non-aligned countries to be impartial when talking about this conflict. They are credible as anyone else.
I think it's a mistake to assume they wouldn't use S-300 because of its cost. It also doesn't make any sense to use expensive missiles to hit kid playgrounds, but it happened before Russia had cheap swarms of Iranian drones. It doesn't make sense to launch salvos of not very precise rockets from helicopters, but that's exactly what both sides are doing for close-ish combat support. Point is, and without knowing for sure if Russia is using S-300 for land targets or not, both sides have used expensive weapons even when it didn't make sense financially.
On a side note, many of today's strikes seem to have used Kh-101 (edit: I meant to write 3M-54, not Kh-101) cruise missiles, which are not cheap ( https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/yw737b/the_m... ). They're using expensive stuff too, not just "cheaper-to-produce missiles".
Regarding the damage from S-300 systems, yes, I've seen videos from Ukraine and Russia (Belgorod) where air defence damages some stuff. I agree that it's possible that what hit Poland was an Ukrainian S-300 or a mix of a Russian missile/drone and Ukrainian S-300. And yes, it could be a Russian missile too... even if it was not done on purpose, shit happens sometimes.
I'm not a weapons expert or have special sources, so this is where I'll leave the thread. I just wanted to point out that the "running out of missiles" narrative was about other weapon systems, not about S-300s, of which they probably still have lots because it was an important part of the Soviet Union air defence.
Ukraine is sovereign country Russian has no right to invade it whatever you think Maidan.
I would say it's fine to invade those regions.
Anyway, latest headlines are saying things like "Poland missile ‘unlikely’ to have been fired from Russia" so the media did, in fact, manage to correct the misleading initial reports within about 12 hours.
Listed surface to surface mode for S300 is 120km.
Want some real conspiracy theory?
Two missiles means they were launched from the same site. Two missiles failed to self-liquidate is not very probable, means they had the SL system disabled.
Now, even if there was a Russian missile - they were launched West and let to fall whereever it would be.
Note, AFAIR S300 has a radio commanded self-liquidation, in addition to a built-in one on altitude and miss.
If there was only one missile I could've believed it was a malfunction somewhere. Not with a two.
Alternatively, NATO could say that they can shoot down any Russian missiles since Russia cannot be trusted and has bad aim.
It's really suspicious that two missiles hit Poland. If it were one missile, it could be due to some kind of component failure that caused the missile to go off course.
Two missiles are not likely to both fail, so that suggests Poland was targeted on purpose.
>My sources in the services say that what hit Przewowo is most likely the remains of a rocket shot down by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/mariuszgierszew/status/15925955074275450...
40 miles from the border
What scares me is that everyone is speculating and jumping to conclusions without hard facts. Behaving this way can easily escalate some trivial situation into something more serious.
[1]: https://t.me/intelslava/41141
According to [1], Pentagon spokesperson Patrick Ryder said "we don't have any information at this time to corroborate those [press] reports"
[1] - https://www.dw.com/en/nato-investigating-reports-of-russian-...
It's a bit of a waste of a sophisticated rocket, and the warhead is smaller, but the ones they fire tend to be reaching EOL anyway due to age. That, or lack of better alternatives.
So could still be Russian.
Stanisław Jerzy Lec said that it's shameful to suspect when you're certain. Russia has a well established reputation, so while investigation is needed, we can safely assume it's Russian rockets. We of course will be surprised if it happen to be false, but before that it should be logical to follow most likely explanation.
But there is no certainty here, just speculation.
"we can safely assume it's Russian rockets"
It's dangerous to assume anything when it could lead to WW3.
I honestly don't know ho to defend myself about that? Being ignorant to news is probably not good idea. But finding relevant information nowadays require significant amount of time. That is luxury that most people cannot effort so I guess majority easily jump to any kind of trends.
Maybe Putin is testing the waters to see how NATO will respond?
What better way to see the limits of missile interception, how leaders will react, how unified or divided NATO members are, etc.
Nothing suggests Poland was targeted on purpose besides your fear-based rhetoric / war mongering.
"Russia cannot be trusted and has bad aim".
This war has turned everyone into a bunch of Russophobes and has really helped to shine a light on how many racist-ass people live in Eastern Europe. Not really surprising though since they hero worship this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera - in Ukraine.
To Poland? They will rather go to WW3 than apologize to Poland.
LOL fascinating way of dismissing all those who disagree with you
And immediately starts posting crazy propaganda talking points the Russians have been dispersing for months. I guess they could be volunteering as propagandists, but there's not a meaningful difference in being paid to do it and doing it voluntarily. It's propaganda for Russia in both cases.
And you say this because? Dang is doing a very good job in general, but I can't imagine him intervening in this case. How is he going to check if a given user is a Putin's troll or just a normal citizen afraid of escalation? Heck, even Musk suggested surrendering a large part of Ukraine just to get an illusion of peace. So how on Earth could any moderator do this kind of job in a reliable way?
1. Confirmation of armed incident taking place.
2. Government considers triggering art.4 after consulting US.
3. Some parts of Armed Forces are on high alert.
No further details."
https://twitter.com/SaladinAlDronni/status/15926278761214320...
"Polish Govt spox:
- investigating reasons behind the explosion
- two people dead
- military readiness level raised in response
- President Duda spoke with Stoltenberg tonight
- Poland considering whether to call for NATO discussions under Article 4
- Cabinet meeting to follow"
https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1592626871367520257
From the BBC [0]: Unverified pictures indicate it was from an S-300, used by both Ukraine and Russia.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-asia-63593855