If you want to be pedantic about it, I think @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net means air supremacy, which Russia does not have. For instance, during the Israel-Iran war Israel had air superiority over all of Iran, in that they were not under threat and could operate mostly, but only had supremacy over the western part of Iran, where they could conduct deep strikes and totally rule the skies and do anything with almost no resistance whatsoever in the air. This same situation happened in Lebanon and Gaza (obviously). Russia does not have supremacy over Ukraine, and does not conduct deep airstrikes. All of the strikes carried out in western Ukraine are by cruise missiles or missiles launched via aircraft far outside the range of Ukranian air defenses. I think Russia could gain air supremacy over Ukraine, but they don’t want to pay that price right now because it’d be costly in terms of aircraft.
No, Russia very much does have air supremacy over Ukraine. Russia literally conducts strikes all over Ukraine with impunity on pretty much daily basis right now. While jets only operate around the front. Russian strategic bombers fire missiles all the way into western Ukraine. Air supremacy doesn’t mean that you’re flying jets into western Ukraine. It means you have dominance of the sky which Russia does. Ukraine effectively has no air force to speak of at this point, and they are unable to intercept Russian strikes. There is no logical reason why Russia would try to fly aircraft deep into Ukraine either. Russian approach has always been to launch missiles from long range. It’s a different doctrine from the one US uses where they try to fly stealth bombers deep into enemy territory.
Nah Russia would do that too if they could. That’s the strategy they pursued in Syria, and it’s what they did in Kursk. Close air support is always really helpful. Plus, if Russia really had air supremacy and total control of the skies, they’d be able to take out Ukraine’s missile launchers before they get missiles in the air (like Israel was doing to Iran in the western part of Iran during the war). Ukraine still has vast capability to strike Russia through the air; you’re right their air force doesn’t exist, but their air defenses and ability to still operate with relative safety in Western Ukraine shows Russia doesn’t have total control of the skies.
Russia would obviously not carpet bomb large civilian areas because they need a stable Ukraine after the war. Meanwhile, there’s zero evidence that I’m aware of that any large scale bombing campaigns were done in Kursk or that it was the decisive factor there. Even western media openly admits now that Ukraine isn’t able to intercept something like 90% of Russian missiles. Western Ukraine is being hammered on daily basis right now.
Missiles do not equal air superiority. Iran was able to lob dozens of missiles at Israel and achieved a good level of hits, even with Israel’s advanced missile defense systems. Under no circumstances did they have anything approaching air superiority over the skies of Israel. There’s a difference between carpet bombing large civilian areas and surgical strikes, but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to. I don’t think this is due to lack of capability; if Russia wanted to, they could achieve air supremacy over Ukraine and bomb at will. I don’t think they’re willing to pay the price to establish that because they’ve calculated they can win without it, which I tend to agree with.
Yes, being able to launch missiles and drones on daily basis with vast majority of them hitting their targets while the enemy is not able to do the same in response is literally the definition of having air superiority.
but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to
I’m not sure where you get this notion given that Russia is hitting precision targets every day. That’s why Ukrainian energy grid is collapsing as we speak. This is what air superiority looks like
If you want to be pedantic about it, I think @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net means air supremacy, which Russia does not have. For instance, during the Israel-Iran war Israel had air superiority over all of Iran, in that they were not under threat and could operate mostly, but only had supremacy over the western part of Iran, where they could conduct deep strikes and totally rule the skies and do anything with almost no resistance whatsoever in the air. This same situation happened in Lebanon and Gaza (obviously). Russia does not have supremacy over Ukraine, and does not conduct deep airstrikes. All of the strikes carried out in western Ukraine are by cruise missiles or missiles launched via aircraft far outside the range of Ukranian air defenses. I think Russia could gain air supremacy over Ukraine, but they don’t want to pay that price right now because it’d be costly in terms of aircraft.
No, Russia very much does have air supremacy over Ukraine. Russia literally conducts strikes all over Ukraine with impunity on pretty much daily basis right now. While jets only operate around the front. Russian strategic bombers fire missiles all the way into western Ukraine. Air supremacy doesn’t mean that you’re flying jets into western Ukraine. It means you have dominance of the sky which Russia does. Ukraine effectively has no air force to speak of at this point, and they are unable to intercept Russian strikes. There is no logical reason why Russia would try to fly aircraft deep into Ukraine either. Russian approach has always been to launch missiles from long range. It’s a different doctrine from the one US uses where they try to fly stealth bombers deep into enemy territory.
Nah Russia would do that too if they could. That’s the strategy they pursued in Syria, and it’s what they did in Kursk. Close air support is always really helpful. Plus, if Russia really had air supremacy and total control of the skies, they’d be able to take out Ukraine’s missile launchers before they get missiles in the air (like Israel was doing to Iran in the western part of Iran during the war). Ukraine still has vast capability to strike Russia through the air; you’re right their air force doesn’t exist, but their air defenses and ability to still operate with relative safety in Western Ukraine shows Russia doesn’t have total control of the skies.
Russia would obviously not carpet bomb large civilian areas because they need a stable Ukraine after the war. Meanwhile, there’s zero evidence that I’m aware of that any large scale bombing campaigns were done in Kursk or that it was the decisive factor there. Even western media openly admits now that Ukraine isn’t able to intercept something like 90% of Russian missiles. Western Ukraine is being hammered on daily basis right now.
Missiles do not equal air superiority. Iran was able to lob dozens of missiles at Israel and achieved a good level of hits, even with Israel’s advanced missile defense systems. Under no circumstances did they have anything approaching air superiority over the skies of Israel. There’s a difference between carpet bombing large civilian areas and surgical strikes, but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to. I don’t think this is due to lack of capability; if Russia wanted to, they could achieve air supremacy over Ukraine and bomb at will. I don’t think they’re willing to pay the price to establish that because they’ve calculated they can win without it, which I tend to agree with.
Yes, being able to launch missiles and drones on daily basis with vast majority of them hitting their targets while the enemy is not able to do the same in response is literally the definition of having air superiority.
I’m not sure where you get this notion given that Russia is hitting precision targets every day. That’s why Ukrainian energy grid is collapsing as we speak. This is what air superiority looks like