The War of Paradoxes: From Meloni's Press Conference to Putin's Hypersonic Duel

(To Andrea Sapori)
10/01/25

Yesterday, while attending the Prime Minister's press conference, at a certain point a question came up that highlighted the clash between Russians and Ukrainians (by calling it a "clash" I avoid getting into disquisitions on terms such as "war" and/or "special operation").

Meloni emphasized what is ultimately the most interesting question: How come all-powerful Russia couldn't get this thing done in a reasonable time?

And at a reasonable cost - I add (whatever you mean by "cost"), because if you stop to reflect without prejudice on these three years spent looking eastward (at least for us) everything or almost everything has depended on this carnage. Three years can be few or many... it depends on where and how you spent them.

Three months after the attack Kissinger stated that, given the results, Russia had lost, even if in the end, on the field, counting the square kilometers of that "field", geometry would have declared it the winner.

I thought a lot about this consideration, made by a man who had lived in Vietnam and who reached an agreement with the Chinese to close what, legally, had not even been a solution for the USA. war: it was never declared, it was an armed intervention in support of the South.

I have already written here that History there is certainly no lack of a sense of irony.

Apart from this, maybe it's the years (mine) that are starting to weigh on me but, as in a "bubble sorting" process (I am a child of the BASIC language), I remembered a curious episode relatively recent but, in my opinion, quite neglected.

The Russians used a missile system they call hypersonic and practically (according to them) not interceptable: TheOresik. I am not here to discuss the capabilities of this weapon; what aroused my rather amused interest was the "challenge" (like "OK Corrall") launched by Putin to the USA and NATO: "deploy your best anti-missile systems and we'll throw an Oreshnik at you, so we can show you who's boss...".

I don't know why, but yesterday I thought about this proposal from Putin. And you know... I would have accepted it: it would have been a great opportunity to study and, even admitting that we could intercept the missile, it wouldn't have been mandatory to tear it down.

At that point the Russians would have had the "perception" of their technical supremacy which, on a future key occasion, could have turned into a devastating surprise.

This dynamic has already happened in 1982, when the Syrian Air Force and AA artillery were - literally - swept away from Israel.

The Syrians (read "the Soviets") were absolutely convinced that the Mig-25 (photo) and ground-to-air systems SA-2 were clearly superior to their US and non-US counterparts used by Israel.

In three days, after a hundred aircraft shot down or destroyed on the ground, they discovered the terrible mistake they had made. A mistake in which Israel had made sure that the Syrians fell, avoiding intercepting and shooting down the Mig-25 which for weeks had been flying over airspace controlled by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) - well above Mach 2.

This clash, called the "Bekaa Valley massacre", is studied in (almost) every war academy and school in the world.

A consideration comes to mind now: net of the duel proposed by Putin, was Kissinger wrong?

My father often told me that "two despairs, put together, do not make a happiness".

Happy 2025!

Photo. web