That’s the great thing about being best friends with China....they are always ready to step in and replace your entire industrial base
The cost of an adversary’s drone or other weapon is irrelevant. What matters is the damage any particular drone/weapon can do. If a cheap weapon is on track to cause $1 million worth of damage/loss, while an expensive weapon will cause only $1,000 of damage, take down the cheap weapon. What you are purchasing through the use of a defensive weapon is avoiding harm — use the defensive weapon in a way that maximizes the avoidance of harm/damage — Not based on the perceived cost of the target offensive weapon.
China will have to ensure its products do not contain western parts either, to ensure they are not themselves sanctioned.
Agree that a primary goal is to maximize avoidance of such harm/damage on Ukrainian people and other assets. But it is important HOW one takes down a particular weapon. I mentioned those Russian glide bombs as cheap and numerous to show the costs Russia is bearing, but that is relevant if we can change costs on one or both sides because by doing so harm/damage is reduced on Ukraine.
That makes sense — and notice that the cost to Russia of the drone shot down is irrelevant to the part that makes sense. It’s all about the allocation of limited resources to get the best return on the investment of those resources.
www.theguardian.com
As much as I'd like to believe the Tucker Carlson story it doesn't seem to be true.
