Opinion | HIMARS o'clock, or a broken clock

By Tom Fowdy

The world of social media has recently become acquainted with what is known as the "High Mobility Artillery Rocket System" or "HIMARS", a high-tech rocket launch system recently provided by the United States to Ukraine to assist it in its fight against the Russian invasion. The system gives Ukraine the capability to strike accurate targets deep behind Russian lines, which has quickly resulted in a nightly bombardment of Russian ammunition and military facilities by Kyiv, giving encouragement to its supporters on social media, who long harbored a belief that Ukraine is winning the conflict. This has created the latest pro-Ukraine meme, which is known as "HIMARS O'Clock" leading to an obsession over Russian ammunition depots.

It goes without saying that Ukraine, aided by the western media and a tight censorship campaign imposed on Russian sources, has had the privilege of completely dictating the narrative of the war from the beginning, which has allowed itself and its supporters to sustain morale during what would otherwise be seen as an inevitable defeat. Your average Ukraine supporter soaks up Kyiv's vastly exaggerated figures of Russian losses, believes Moscow played to take Kyiv in just three days, and of course believes now the addition of the HIMARS rocket systems is a decisive gamechanger which will allow Ukraine to take back the vast swathes of territory occupied by the Russians.

All of this is fanciful. Part of the propaganda push of course, is the undergoing effort to downplay the fact that Russia has had an equal capability to destroy targets in a similar manner from day one. By law, no Ukrainian is allowed to provide this information, with Twitter now also collaborating in the censorship of such material, whilst Kyiv also seeks to distract by conveniently claiming the only targets that ever get hit by Moscow are civilian ones. This psychological gap in the information provided aptly exaggerates the significance of HIMARS and misleads one side precisely because they are attuned to believe they are not suffering any hardships or losses at all.

However, it is also undeniable that the addition of HIMARS to the war has added a new dynamic which constitutes a new strategic dilemma for Russia. Whilst it has been pointed out that Russia has far more ammunition and supplies beyond what these systems are striking, these highly mobile systems are nonetheless disruptive and their biggest advantage lies in the fact that they are difficult to locate and pin down, making them a constant threat, as well as a reminder of how the United States acts as a de-facto participant in the conflict by not only supplying such weaponry, but also clearly providing the intelligence on where to strike. What might happen, if seeing their nightly success, the US decides to supply more?

Rather of course than turning the tide in Ukraine's favor, such a scenario would be more likely to force Russia's hand into escalating further given the political stakes at hand, something which oddly enough Putin has refrained from doing despite the constant one-sided media focus on his setbacks. Moscow has avoided a formal declaration of war against Kyiv as of present, sticking to the auspices of the "special military operation". Such a declaration was incorrectly predicted to happen in May on Victory Day, but if it did Russia would be able to mobilize a whole wide range of other resources against Ukraine, including its own allied states.

Although of course rubbished by Ukraine supporters, Russia has also largely refrained from using the fullness of its destructive capabilities against its neighbor. Although it remains a non-starter to resort to nuclear weaponry given the consequences at hand, Russia has not used its strategic bombers to their full potential and has avoided the path of resorting to leveling "decision-making centers" such as Kyiv itself. It is often forgotten that Russia almost certainly has "escalation dominance" in this conflict and despite the gruesome outcomes of the invasion, has by their standards acted relatively cautiously than rashly.

In this case, "HIMARS O'clock" is more like a broken clock. The new missile systems are certainly a disruption to Russia, but it is ill-conceited to assume they will be a gamechanger which turns the tide of the war. It ultimately comes down to a question of how much, and to what extent is Ukraine capable of escalating, without forcing Russia's hand towards an even more unfavorable outcome? If you only go by Ukrainian sources, you'd never believe Kyiv has lost over 20% of its territory to Russia, lost the battle for Luhansk Oblast, claimed numerous exaggerated Kherson counteroffensives which amounted to naught, or had in fact also suffered heavy losses at the hands of Moscow. It is a reminder that our perception of the war is visually impaired through an extremely distorted reporting environment which misleads our consciousness to the reality of the situation, but it seems logically improbable that Kyiv will be allowed to get away with these strikes in the long run, no matter which way you look at it.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | The revisionism of Abe Shinzo

Opinion | NASA's Moon paranoia exposes the upcoming space race