Vladimir Putin’s ‘undefeatable’ missile was a costly illusion – the West can’t make the same mistake
As Western supplies of high-tech weapons flow into Ukraine in preparation for the anticipated spring offensive, Russia is also trying to bolster its arsenal.
It has resorted to trading SU-35 fighter jets to Iran in return for continued supply of Iranian Shahid 136 attack drones, and also fielded state-of-the-art missile systems for the first time.
But will these radical steps make a decisive impact on the course of the war?
Ukraine war latest: Putin claims West trying to break up Russia
The Iranian attack drones are not sophisticated, or expensive, but do enable Russia to maintain nightly pressure on Ukraine’s limited supplies of air defence missiles.
However, such missiles are more of an “irritation” to Ukraine and have limited military utility.
In contrast, Russia’s latest generation of high-tech weapons – the KILLJOY Air-Launched Hypersonic ballistic missile, described by President Vladimir Putin as “undefeatable” – appeared to offer Moscow’s forces the chance to scythe through Ukrainian defences with impunity.
Before the KILLJOY was used, the West could only speculate as to the missile’s capabilities, and thus it held considerable mystique and deterrence capability.
However, the moment it was used, the West was able to analyse its capability, its limitations and its vulnerabilities – and on 3 May, it appears the Ukrainians managed to shoot one down, with several more suffering a similar fate over the following days.
A Russian sailor on a navy frigate said to be armed with hypersonic weapons
West can’t risk exposing their hand
The KILLJOY would have taken years – and billions of dollars – to develop, yet much of the value lay in its potential.
Nations invest in credible military capability to deter potential aggressors. Secret weapon programmes sow seeds of doubt in the minds of enemies, even if actual capability falls some way short of that anticipated.
As a result, the West is very careful to limit the level of combat capability deployed to avoid “exposing their hand”, and limit the potential for donated weapons to find their way onto the local black market – as is the risk in Ukraine.
Western war fighters routinely do not have access to the very latest capability in conflicts such as Afghanistan, to preserve state-of-the-art high-tech weapons for any future war of national survival.
The UK’s Storm Shadow is a very capable missile, but the technology is 25 years old, and the UK is planning a midlife upgrade in the near future.
As a result, although the British government’s decision to gift Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine offered them a unique long-range strike capability, the UK was limiting the risk of compromising national capability.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What are Storm Shadow missiles?
Likewise, the US Patriot air defence system was first fielded in 1986, and although it has been upgraded regularly, the system deployed into Ukraine is very unlikely to be the latest generation.
Russia has claimed to have destroyed a Patriot system defending Kyiv, potentially exposing the limitations of this potent air defence system.
However, if indeed the Patriot was damaged in a Russian attack, the damage must have been light as the Patriot appears to be back up and running again.
Read more:
Terror inside Bakhmut’s blackened nightmare
The surgeon smuggled into steelworks to save lives
Holding back military capability is not a new concept. In the Second World War, the allies cracked the Enigma code, which enabled intercept of all German traffic.
However, the allies were very careful to limit exploitation of Enigma – as if Germany knew it had been compromised, this vital intelligence would be lost to the allies.
Lives were lost to maintain this most sensitive secret, and that same philosophy prevails today.
Technology provides the West an asymmetric military advantage, which must be protected.
Putin’s folly was to believe his own hype – the “undefeatable” missile has proven an expensive illusion.
A crash between two oil tankers on a major shipping route near the UAE was likely caused by a navigational misjudgement by one of the vessels, officials have said.
The Adalynn and Front Eagle tankers collided and caught on fire on Tuesday near the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.
Israel-Iran latest: Tehran warns US against intervention
In a statement issued today, the United Arab Emirates’ energy ministry did not draw any link between the crash and an upsurge in electronic interference amid the Israel-Iran conflict.
Interference has disrupted navigation systems near the strait since the two countries began firing missiles at each other last week.
The multinational US-led Combined Maritime Force’s Joint Maritime Information Centre said in an advisory this week that it had received reports of interference stemming from near Iran’s Port of Bandar Abbas and other areas in the Gulf region.
Tehran has not commented on the collision or reports of interference.
The UAE coastguard said it evacuated 24 people from the Adalynn, while personnel on Front Eagle were reported safe with no pollution visible after a fire on its deck.
Read more from Sky News:
Why Israel-Iran conflict poses cost of living threat
Who has been targeted in Israel’s strikes?
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The Strait of Hormuz – which handles around a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil – links the Gulf to the northwest with the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea beyond.
The Adalynn, owned by a company based in India, had no cargo and was sailing towards the Suez Canal in Egypt, according to monitoring service TankerTrackers.com.
The Front Eagle was on its way to Zhoushan in China – and loaded with two million barrels of Iraqi crude oil, the tracker said.
TankerTrackers.com said on X that the Front Eagle was moving southbound at a speed of 13.1 knots when it “executed a starboard [right] turn, resulting in a collision” with the Adalynn.
The exact cause of the collision, which resulted in no injuries or spills, is still unclear.
US President Donald Trump says he has yet to decide whether the US will join Israel militarily in its campaign against Iran.
Asked whether the US was getting closer to striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mr Trump said: “I may do it. I may not do it.”
Speaking outside the White House on Wednesday, he added: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do…Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.
“And I said, ‘why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'”
Mr Trump said Iran had reached out to Washington, a claim Tehran denied, with Iran’s mission to the UN responding: “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House.”
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran would not surrender and warned “any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage” to US-Iranian relations.
Read more:
Why did Israel attack Iran?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The families caught up in Iran-Israel attacks
Strikes continue
Hundreds have reportedly died since Iran and Israel began exchanging strikes last Friday, when Israel launched an air assault after saying it had concluded Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran denies.
Israel launched three waves of aerial attacks on Iran in the last 24 hours, military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin has said.
Israel deployed dozens of warplanes to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and western Iran, including missile launchers and missile-production sites, he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Can Iran’s leadership be toppled?
“The aim of the operation is to eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel, significantly damage Iran’s nuclear programme in all its components, and severely impact its missile array,” he said.
Early on Thursday Israel issued an evacuation warning to residents of the Iranian Arak region where Iran has heavy water reactor facilities. Heavy water is important in controlling chain reactions in the production of weapons grade plutonium.
Meanwhile Iran says it has arrested 18 people it describes as “enemy agents” who it says were building drones for the Israelis in the northern city of Mashhad.
Iran also launched small barrages of missiles at Israel on Wednesday with no reports of casualties. Israel has now eased some restrictions for its civilians.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Read more:
Trump’s words designed to stoke tension, confuse and apply intense pressure on Iran
MAGA civil war breaks out over Trump’s potential decision to join conflict with Iran
The US is working to evacuate its citizens from Israel by arranging flights and cruise ship departures, the US ambassador to the country has said.
In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer chaired a COBRA emergency meeting on the situation in the Middle East, with a Downing Street spokesperson saying: “Ministers were updated on efforts to support British nationals in region and protect regional security, as well as ongoing diplomatic efforts”.
The UK government’s top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel’s actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government.
The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer’s thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK’s potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.
If the attorney general deems Israel’s actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general’s concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict “unless our personnel are targeted”.
US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily.
Members of the Israeli special forces check the remains of a suspected ballistic missile in northern Israel.
Pic: Reuters
This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow.
These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran.
The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland.
Under a long-standing convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations.
The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes.
Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Israel’s justification
Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an “imminent” and “existential” threat to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country’s own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel.
They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been “less than satisfactory” in “a number of respects” on its international compliance over its nuclear activities.
It is not clear what aspect of Israel’s justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over.
The Attorney General’s Office has told Sky News: “By long-standing convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.
“The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.”
The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Michael Clarke and Dominic Waghorn answer your questions about the Israel-Iran conflict
In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran.
The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024.
But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders.
The UN’s nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality.
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA’s general conference has said “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target.
Read more:
US senator claims Iran is building missiles that can ‘murder Americans’
Moscow switches to crisis mode after Trump’s Iran threats
It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use.
The site of an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Pic: Reuters
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel’s use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.
Interpretations of International Law
Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks.
The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats.
The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent.
The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred.
An oil storage facility after it appeared to have been struck by an Israeli missile in Tehran. Pic: AP
That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad.
The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of “imminent”.
The concepts of “proportionality”, “necessity” and “imminence” are key considerations.
International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the “proportionality” test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear.
But whether there was the “necessity” to attack Iran at this point is more questionable.
The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the ‘imminence’ of the Iranian threat against Israel – and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was “imminent” – as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve.
In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction – a claim that turned out to be wrong.
The then-attorney general’s advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair’s decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike