It’s worth noting that Putin is a moderate in Russia, and if there’s any criticism of him domestically it’s that he’s being too timid in Ukraine and dealing with the west. If anything happened to Putin, it’s guaranteed that somebody like Medvedev, who’s far more hardline, would be in charge instead.
In that case maybe not targeting Putin is ideal, but I still agree that there is little military benefit to the cruise missiles in some “deep strike” role.
Just like Kursk, stuffing limited military resources into desperate gambits isn’t going to convince any Russian politician or general that the war isn’t going in their favour.
Well depends on which war. They could hit objects that will hinder Russian ability in future conflicts with other NATO lapdogs - see for example strikes on nuclear warning radars. Plus there’s a history of successful drone attacks on Russian airfields (because for some reason jets are stored in the open there). Those jets are used for retaliatory strikes
What can Ukraine realistically hit, other than Putin himself, that would alter the outcome of the war without invoking some kind of nuclear exchange?
It’s worth noting that Putin is a moderate in Russia, and if there’s any criticism of him domestically it’s that he’s being too timid in Ukraine and dealing with the west. If anything happened to Putin, it’s guaranteed that somebody like Medvedev, who’s far more hardline, would be in charge instead.
convinced me, I’ll assassinate Putin
In that case maybe not targeting Putin is ideal, but I still agree that there is little military benefit to the cruise missiles in some “deep strike” role.
Just like Kursk, stuffing limited military resources into desperate gambits isn’t going to convince any Russian politician or general that the war isn’t going in their favour.
Indeed, and even western media openly admits that deep strikes into Russia can’t really achieve much of anything https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-long-range-missiles/
Well depends on which war. They could hit objects that will hinder Russian ability in future conflicts with other NATO lapdogs - see for example strikes on nuclear warning radars. Plus there’s a history of successful drone attacks on Russian airfields (because for some reason jets are stored in the open there). Those jets are used for retaliatory strikes
I’m pretty sure killing the Russian president (and likely his cabinet, which would always be nearby) is plenty of justification for nuclear war.
I’m sure if Russia bombed the White House and the president, nukes wound start flying immediately.