EPTThat does not mean they can't continue to create havoc. Their drones take very little infrastructure to launch and are much more expensive to bring down. Given that they are attacking everyone you also can't concentrate your defenses anywhere. Insurgency style can continue to bring havoc almost indefinitely. But I don't think you are going to see some big ballistic missile strike, that will keep going down. And all their conventional army and navy are going to be left in ruin.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 919
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Billyboy
1500 Posts
That does not mean they can't continue to create havoc. Their drones take very little infrastructure to launch and are much more expensive to bring down. Given that they are attacking everyone you also can't concentrate your defenses anywhere. Insurgency style can continue to bring havoc almost indefinitely. But I don't think you are going to see some big ballistic missile strike, that will keep going down. And all their conventional army and navy are going to be left in ruin. | ||
|
pmp10
3388 Posts
On March 04 2026 23:48 Jankisa wrote: Honestly the salvos Iran has been churning out seem restrained, I have a feeling that they are holding one big one back, at least, and they are waiting for more evidence of the interceptors being out. That would be extremely stupid of them. This war is a classic escalation ladder, the moment Iran climbs too many steps up without reason they are sure to get invaded or nuked. At this moment we have no idea if Iran is running out of launch capability or just pacing itself for a long war. We should learn that in a few weeks time. | ||
KwarK
United States43646 Posts
On March 05 2026 02:28 pmp10 wrote: That would be extremely stupid of them. This war is a classic escalation ladder, the moment Iran climbs too many steps up without reason they are sure to get invaded or nuked. At this moment we have no idea if Iran is running out of launch capability or just pacing itself for a long war. We should learn that in a few weeks time. I think the escalation ladder is winnable for Iran here, within limits. Iran is huge, has comparable terrain to Afghanistan, and has a large military. It has direct supply lines from Russia across the Caspian. There’s an escalation ceiling where they get annihilated. Like if they launch a dirty bomb at Jerusalem. They should stay underneath that ceiling. But there’s a fairly low willingness by the US to commit ground troops to a conventional war. That leaves a huge middle chunk of the ladder where Iran can escalate as much as it likes because it’s already getting bombed and it knows it isn’t going to get ground invaded. I think people are also sleeping on Russian fuckery here. Any time a tanker gets overwhelmed by a drone swarm that is a huge win for Russia. A huge monetary win (drives up oil prices), a huge geopolitical win (Europe depends on Arabian LNG exports to replace Russian gas), a strategic win (helps their ally in the war), and a humiliation to the United States (shows them as powerless to defend the area). Russia fucking loves grey warfare, it loves deniable sabotage, it loves using proxies, and it loves drones. If there aren’t short range truck launched anti ship missiles being shipped across the Caspian right now I’d be amazed. It’s as obvious a play as when the UK gave Ukraine all the anti tank missiles in 2022. The Brits didn't need to believe that Ukraine would defeat Russia to think it'd be really funny if a bunch of Ukrainians suddenly had shoulder launched anti tank missiles right as the Russian armoured column pushed in. Similarly Russia doesn't need much of a push to prank the US with pallets of drones. | ||
|
Jankisa
Croatia1193 Posts
If Putin and Trump are just heads of states in a multi polar world, each playing it's geopolitical game, then yes, what KwarK suggested would be the best possible move. Plausible deniability, Putin has nukes so he doesn't have to really fear Trump's revenge, plus, Trump is a bully and Russia, even in it's depleted state is a much bigger threat then Iran or Venezuela. On the other hand, if Trump and Putin have a silent agreement, along with Xi to split the world in spheres of influence and Iran is part of a package deal weakened Putin had to concede to Americans and Israelis along with Venezuela, this kind of move would be near suicidal, everyone know Trump is an impulsive maniac and if he sniffs that Putin is back stabbing him Ukraine could get such a surge of weapons that the front lines could rapidly deteriorate. I mean, in the end, who the fuck knows, one of the things that lives rent free in my head is that hot mic moment from Beijing last year where they talked about immortality through bio technology and organ transplants. Maybe it's all a big play for the stupid masses, maybe they are all buddies behind closed doors and each one, including Trump is playing their part. At this point, in this stupid reality, I wouldn't rule anything out. | ||
|
pmp10
3388 Posts
On March 05 2026 03:56 KwarK wrote: I think the escalation ladder is winnable for Iran here, within limits. Iran is huge, has comparable terrain to Afghanistan, and has a large military. It has direct supply lines from Russia across the Caspian. There’s an escalation ceiling where they get annihilated. Like if they launch a dirty bomb at Jerusalem. They should stay underneath that ceiling. But there’s a fairly low willingness by the US to commit ground troops to a conventional war. That leaves a huge middle chunk of the ladder where Iran can escalate as much as it likes because it’s already getting bombed and it knows it isn’t going to get ground invaded. Sure, but the problem for Iran is that it can also be bombed back to stone-age without anyone committing boots on the ground. If they lose or exhaust their retaliation options, Israel will happily 'grass-mow' them for years, likely all the way to state collapse. So they have to climb that ladder a little bit at a time to inflict greater costs on Trump, but not so fast that they reach the limit of their capabilities. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17684 Posts
On March 05 2026 17:03 pmp10 wrote: Sure, but the problem for Iran is that it can also be bombed back to stone-age without anyone committing boots on the ground. If they lose or exhaust their retaliation options, Israel will happily 'grass-mow' them for years, likely all the way to state collapse. So they have to climb that ladder a little bit at a time to inflict greater costs on Trump, but not so fast that they reach the limit of their capabilities. This is an interesting problem. Iran is too big and geographically hard for anyone to really conquer it. At the same time, if they get bombed to oblivion but new government is elected that has the favor of big players you can't really just "grass-mow" them any more... | ||
| ||
