Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 28, 2025
U.S.-Supplied Air Defenses Fail In Ukraine

On May 23 the former Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian army had a pessimistic assessment of the war in Ukraine (machine translation):

Former commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and now Ambassador to the UK Valery Zaluzhny said that Russia has overtaken Ukraine in innovations on the battlefield.

According to him, Ukraine at the moment "does not manage to continuously generate and scale innovations, even in those areas where yesterday we were ahead of the enemy."

"The enemy has already overtaken us and we are lagging behind – and we must be honest about this," he said.

The ex-commander-in-chief believes that the Russian Federation is now waging a war of attrition. In response, it is necessary, according to Zaluzhny, "to undermine the economy and social component in order to deprive Russia of the possibility of scientific and technological development and start the processes of civil unrest and disintegration."

How to do this, the ex-commander-in-chief does not specify, …

Zaluzhny was likely not only referring to the drone war which Russia is winning but also to the mediocre state of Ukraine's air defenses.

A day after Zaluzhny, the spokesman of the Air Force of Ukraine confirmed his take (machine translation):

Russia has improved its ballistic missiles, so Patriot systems have become worse at shooting them down. This was stated by the head of the Communications Department of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Yuriy Ignat, commenting on today's night shelling of Kiev.

Iskander-M missiles, which attack along a ballistic trajectory, have been significantly improved and upgraded

"We are talking about shooting radar traps, which each missile can shoot during the approach to the target. Another is the flight of a ballistic missile along a quasi-ballistic trajectory, when the missile does not fly in a straight line, but already performs maneuvers, " he said on the telethon.

The new Iskander versions use decoys to confuse the air defense radars. They also maneuver during the last phase of their flight making their interception nearly impossible.

Reporting on the large scale Saturday night attack on Ukraine the Washington Post noted that the U.S. provided Patriot air defenses systems in Ukraine had failed (archived):

The Russian assault involved nearly 400 missiles and drones, including nine ballistic missiles that Ukrainian air defenses, already strained and in short supply, failed to intercept, Ukraine’s air force said.

Some of the Russian missiles destroyed at least one Patriot air defense battery. Each battery consists of a radar, a combat control station and two or more launcher vehicles. The cost for a full battery is about $1 billion. Each fired missile comes at a price of $2-4 million.


bigger

The Patriot battery killed during the weekend strike was not the first one to meet that fate.

The Military Watch Magazine has documented the history of the system in Ukraine:

The Iskander system was first confirmed to have successfully destroyed a Patriot system on February 23, 2024, with a subsequent strike destroying another system near the Sergeevka locality on March 10 that year, leaving ground forces in the region exposed. Subsequently in the second week of July, 2024, new footage confirmed the destruction of two batteries in the Odessa region, while on August 11 three more missile batteries and an AN/MPQ-65 radar were reported to have been destroyed in Iskander-M strikes. One of the Iskander-M’s more recent successes saw the destruction of the Patriot’s AN/MPQ-65 multifunctional radar station, combat control cabin, and missile launch vehicles all destroyed in the Dnepropetrovsk region.

Together with the one on Saturday/Sunday that sums up to a total of ten destroyed systems. That is likely more than half of the total provided by the U.S. and its allies.

The Patriot air defense system is quite old. The first version was used 35 years ago during the first U.S. war on Iraq. It largely failed to achieve its mission:

In 1992 a military report titled ‘Patriot Missile System Effectiveness During Desert Storm’ found that of the 158 missiles fired during the Gulf War, 45 percent were launched against false targets. An early 1990s study by Theodore Postol, professor of Science, Technology and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and prominent expert on missile technologies, highlighted: “The Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than 10 percent, possibly even zero." Even “the most primitive of adversaries" could easily evade interception, his study concluded.

New versions of the Patriot's radar and missiles, PAC-2 and PAC-3, were introduced but continued to fail:

Following the revelations of the Patriot system’s shortcomings in the Gulf War, there were considerable hopes in the Western world that its modernisation would allow it to provide a much more viable defence against ballistic missile attacks. Such hopes were disappointed by its performance during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and moreso 14 years later when further modernised variants failed to intercept a strike by makeshift ballistic missiles launched by Yemeni paramilitaries against Saudi Arabia in 2017. The Yemeni missiles were shown by satellite imagery and by photos and videos of the attack not to have been neutralised, despite claims by the Saudi and U.S. government sources to the contrary. Analysis conducted by a research team of missile experts showed a warhead flying unimpeded over Saudi Arabia despite its large arsenal of modernised Patriot batteries protecting the affected area.

The magazine concludes:

The questions more recently raised by Ukrainian officials regarding the Patriot system’s reliability against Russian ballistic missile attacks thus fit in with a long history of underwhelming performances in such a role. This has significant implications for militaries across the Western world and in Northeast Asia that rely on the system for their defence.

Another failure point of the Patriot system is the notorious lack of ammunition needed for it. According to The Economist (archived) the current production rate for Patriot systems is 650 missiles per year. Over the same time frame Russia is producing 750 ballistic missiles each at about 10% of the price of one Patriot missile.

Despite the poor record of the system Ukraine is, according to the Washington Post, still eager to acquire more of them (archived):

KYIV — Ukraine is increasingly worried about securing more U.S.-made Patriot air defense systems, as stockpiles sent during the Biden administration are drying up and the new administration is resistant to sending more, according to six Ukrainian and Western officials.

Ukraine’s dire need for Patriots was apparent over Memorial Day weekend when its air defense forces failed to intercept any of the nine ballistic missiles launched Saturday night and early on Sunday. Two of the missiles were directed at Kyiv, according to Ukraine’s air defense forces, where at least two Patriot units are believed to be stationed.

One of those Patriot units most likely no longer exists.

The Post fails to explain why Ukraine should or would ask for more Patriot systems when, as the same report says, these fail their purpose.

The Post's opinion editors are even worse. Despite multiple reports in their own paper that Patriot systems are not able to defend against Russian missiles they falsely state (archived) that they can do so, only to then repeat that they don't:

What scares Ukraine more than the drones, however, is its diminishing stockpile of U.S.-made Patriot air defense systems. Ballistic missiles fired by Russia can be reliably countered only with Patriot launchers. On Saturday night, Ukraine failed to intercept nine such missile launches.

The editors seem to imply that Ukraine failed to intercept the Iskander missiles because it was lacking Patriot air defense missiles. But that was not the case. Video from the Saturday night attack shows the firing of at least 14 Patriot missiles by two batteries before one of them goes up in flames.


bigger

None of the 14 fired air defense missiles had hit the incoming ballistic missile.

[The Post editors are lobbying for secondary sanctions in form of additional tariffs on products from anyone who buys basic materials from Russia. The tariffs would have to be paid by U.S. consumers. They would hurt the U.S. more than they would hurt Russia and certainly fail to help Ukraine.]

To summarize: Patriot air defenses are a chimera. The system has failed its purpose, to reliably defend against ballistic missile, since its creation.

The only reliable target it manages to intercept each and every time a missile is launched is taxpayer money. One wonders how many bribes are flowing to generate further requests for it.

Comments

Gen Kellogg has tried to expand the U.S.’s role in the upcoming Istanbul negotiations—-expecting to serve as a clearinghouse for the Peace Memorandum from Russia and also the one from Ukraine. He’s positioning himself as the linchpin.
In an environment where there is no daylight between the belligerent, the U.S., and its proxy, Ukraine—-however much the American team tries to fig-leaf this fact—-the likely reality is that Gen Kellogg has actually *written* Ukraine’s Peace Memorandum himself.
So Gen Kellogg claims to have received Ukraine’s document but is agitating the Russian team to provide their Memorandum, a Bum’s Rush of sorts. Foreign Minister Lavrov, large & in-charge, has already stated that Russia will provide the document in Istanbul during the meeting between the Ukrainian team and the Russian one.
Peskov has reinforced this, saying they’d prefer to conduct the negotiations behind closed doors.
But Reuters has already tried to *scoop* Russia’s Memorandum, claiming they have received leaks “from people informed about the matter” which reveal the contents. Reuters is therefore publishing what it claims are part of Russia’s Memorandum.
I think we know a British news agency w/ a deeply Russophobic history and business model does not have inner-circle assets among members of the Russian team who are composing the Memorandum.
So once again we’re in the Fiction Sector of the news agency.
Stir-the-pot Reuters wants to mind-read Russia’s intentions and find maximalist elements among them.
No matter. Medvedev has already made clear: if the Ukrainians can’t accept the essence of Russia’s Peace Memorandum, then the military will pursue the SMO to its victorious conclusion.

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 16:42 utc | 201

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 15:24 utc | 192
I am not denying that the military gives her accesss to power. My question is how likely is it that someone who goes through the military and lacks the standard pedigree is an autonomous actor on such a high ranking and critical position for the CIA and military establishment? Why does it matter? Did Trump know about Putin’s helicopter attack or not? If not, why not? From what we know about past Presidents, it seems military intelligence likes to ensure the Emporer isnt wearing any clothes.

Posted by: Deniz | May 29 2025 16:43 utc | 202

Posted by: Deniz | May 29 2025 16:43 utc | 202
RE: Tulsi lacks the standard pedigree
<< Dude, I can tell this is your hill to die on, so I respect that. Moreover, I'm not trying to change your mind. But it's not a bad thing just to get the deets out there, as a means of documenting, if you like. You have decided that Tulsi "lacks the standard pedigree"---but I wonder what earns you the expertise to decide what the standard pedigree is. Avril Haines was the Director of National Intel before Tulsi, and John Ratcliffe before Haines. Dan Coats preceded Ratcliffe, and James Clapper preceded Coats. Examine their priors, and you're going to find a panoply of expertise---plus some Political Science or International Studies university degrees---but all of them have served in the Beltway in some capacity. Tulsi's cv is very competitive in that particular crowd, but she also brings a steady period of military service which the others did not, so one might say she offers credentials *beyond* the standard D.C. pedigree, which is promising of varied insights. More than anything, my thought is simply that Tulsi is tasked w/ guiding a stallion who refuses both the bit & the bridle---and they're both working in a rough neighborhood. She'll have a saddle on him soon enough, but the trick, as other horse whisperers know, is to make the stallion ask for the saddle.

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 17:21 utc | 203

@Posted by: Deniz | May 29 2025 16:43 utc | 202
The CIA was created (and in its earlier years staffed) by the US capitalist oligarchy to serve its needs outside democratic control, just like the FBI (created under a Hoover who was a craven servant of the oligarchy and the Mob, and was succeeded by his equally craven deputy who served until 1972). The CIA (and FBI) is part of the Deep State that serves the oligarchy and will keep any president in check if he wanders outside the oligarchy-set lines. Usually, the CIA can act as the presidents private army, acting very much in secret when required, as long as he stays within those lines.
The CIA has been allowed to fund itself through widespread drug production and trafficking so that it has many, many billions of “off the books” money to do what is required for the oligarchy without democratic oversight. The heads of the CIA have been members of the oligarchy itself (e.g. Bush Sr), corporate lawyers who were servants of the oligarchy (e.g. Dulles, Casey, Ratcliffe), well groomed and trusted security state operatives (e.g. Tenet, Haspal, Burns). Investigations into the CIA in the 1970s were severely limited and curtailed and even then there were many, many scandalous activities uncovered. The same happened with Iran-Contra. The current CIA head Ratcliffe is very much a creature of the US Republican right, spending twenty years as a private lawyer and groomed by the Bush Jr. administration and then as a GOP House Representative and fellow at the right wing oligarch-funded Heritage Foundation.
After the years of Hoover and his deputy, the FBI was run by the same types as the CIA. Including the absolute tools Mueller (2001 to 2013) and Comey (2013 to 2017). Wray (2017 to 2025) is from a rich family, graduated from Yale, and spent much time as a corporate lawyer; the perfect candidate for head of the FBI. The current head Patel, is very much a creature of Trump and his wing of the US oligarchy (the more nationalist wing compared to the internationalist wing that has been dominant since at least WW2).
The FBI and CIA are tools of the US oligarchy, to see them as in any way independent is to be naive about how the US works. There may be factions challenging for dominance within the oligarchy, as we have seen over the past decade – but that in no way represents any real democratic opening.

Posted by: Roger Boyd | May 29 2025 17:56 utc | 204

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 17:21 utc | 203
Taking a celebrity politician at their word, bold move. My assumption is that the honest ones arent allowed anywhere near real geopolitical power. I actually dont care if she has the paper credentials, I just cant reconcile them with the position she has and my understanding of how the world works. I care that she has integrity and we havent seen that in quite sometime.

Posted by: Deniz | May 29 2025 17:59 utc | 205

@Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 17:21 utc | 203
Gabbard is just another oligarch tool, the only real disagreement is how to run the US Empire. She believes in a more “efficient” management with less military intervention and more covert and special ops. She is also a die-hard Arab hater and Zionist. This is a fight between two wings of the oligarchy, and the security establishment has been staffed by the previous wing for the last century.

Posted by: Roger Boyd | May 29 2025 18:00 utc | 206

Posted by: Deniz | May 29 2025 17:59 utc | 205
RE: and lest we forget
<< Object Lesson 101-------> James Clapper
James Clapper showed us pretty dramatically how the Beltway works for a person in this position.

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 18:42 utc | 207

@Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 17:21 utc | 203
RE: a face-off between two wings of the empire’s oligarchy
<< Thus the undercurrents & frictions emanating from the neocons now. Once you've been addicted to interventionism there's really no methadone.

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 29 2025 18:48 utc | 208

Posted by: Roger Boyd | May 29 2025 17:56 utc | 204
The FBI and CIA are tools of the US oligarchy,
<=did you just describe the source of the root cause of the conflict in Ukraine? Is it these people who Putin should be negotiating with? very interesting comment.. thanks.

Posted by: snake | May 29 2025 20:43 utc | 209

Posted by: Melaleuca | May 29 2025 0:02 utc | 108

Stubb by name, stubb, by intellect says “neutral” Finland and Sweden would not have joined NATO if Putin “had not invaded Ukraine”.

This is more or less bullshit to blame someone else. Preparations for “membership” and US occupation has been going on for 2 decades if not not even more, including during when the idiot was the prime minister and should really know better. What the start of SMO did provide was political cover for triggering the US occupation (which was well prepared in advance) as normally most of the people have been against it.

Posted by: Sekava Seppo | May 30 2025 6:56 utc | 210

Deniz @205: “My assumption is that the honest ones arent allowed anywhere near real geopolitical power.”
They’ve savagely maligned him with continuous campaigns in the mass media using “Dean scream” and much worse style character assassination on steroids and with the hysteria dial turned up to 11 every single day for years on end (no wondering needed why dembot mass media consumers get TDS). They’ve subjected him to nonstop lawfare attacks for almost a decade with the most sensationalist nonsense show trials ever seen in America. They’ve even tried multiple times to literally assassinate him. Where do you see Trump being “allowed” by the Establishment and Deep State in all of this?

Posted by: William Gruff | May 30 2025 7:24 utc | 211

snake @209: “Is it these people [CIA & FBI] who Putin should be negotiating with?”
There is no negotiating with the CIA. They are just the murderous “hands” of the beast anyway. Their manipulation of mass media globally might make them seem brainy, but that is actually fairly mechanical stuff and doesn’t represent making imperial policy. To speak more directly to the beast’s brains one would need to deal with people like Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon and the Kochs.

Posted by: William Gruff | May 30 2025 7:53 utc | 212