Iran sends Russia hundreds of ballistic missiles Reuters
DUBAI, Feb 21 (Reuters) - Iran has provided Russia with a large number of powerful surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, six sources told Reuters, deepening the military cooperation between the two U.S.-sanctioned countries.
Iran's provision of around 400 missiles includes many from the Fateh-110 family of short-range ballistic weapons, such as the Zolfaghar, three Iranian sources said. This road-mobile missile is capable of striking targets at a distance of between 300 and 700 km (186 and 435 miles), experts say.
Iran's defence ministry and the Revolutionary Guards - an elite force that oversees Iran's ballistic missile programme - declined to comment. Russia's defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The shipments began in early January after a deal was finalised in meetings late last year between Iranian and Russian military and security officials that took place in Tehran and Moscow, one of the Iranian sources said.
An Iranian military official - who, like the other sources, asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information - said there had been at least four shipments of missiles and there would be more in the coming weeks. He declined to provide further details.
Another senior Iranian official said some of the missiles were sent to Russia by ship via the Caspian Sea, while others were transported by plane.
ENDQUOTE
This is interesting. I didn't know why Russia would want these but I thought about it for a minute and it made sense. Russia wants more quick deep strike capability. It seems like Russia has enough Kinzhals, Kalibers and Long range drones. Russia has its own domestic Ballistic Missile capability in the form of the Iskandar. But Russia probably doesn't have as many of these as it would like. This extra capability would allow Russia to get quick strike capability. Drones are slower than missiles take time and Kinzhals require a launch from a supersonic aircraft meaning it takes a long lead time to launch them. Ballistic Missiles are quick to fire. Iran also gets a real world test of this Missile system.
Battlefield report
Looks like Ukraine's counter-attack near Robotyne succeeded. Unfortunate but it happens. As Strix said this is a hard operation to pull off. Though it is interesting, I think this is the first successful defensive counter-attack Ukraine has had in a while. I think it was only successful because Ukraine committed a decent amount of vehicles.
Pobjeda saw a small village to the north of it be captured.

Half of Lastochkyne has been captured.
Supposedly South Vietnam lost when we stopped paying their soldiers paychecks.
In the case of Ukraine I'm guessing if we stopped paying for those blocking formations to keep the conscripts on the front line then they would be in trouble.
Or if their commander didn't get his cut.
This is true and I think soldiers not being paid would be quite bad for Ukraine. But even losing the ability to buy things like medical supplies or food would destroy Ukraine Hypothetically. Armies have been tardy in terms of paying soldiers and not collapsed but you need the essentials. Soldiers are pretty good at dealing with hard situations, but they can't escape the fact they need to eat. But this is a hypothetical I think the EU will do anything to keep the bare essentials for Ukraine. I doubt this situation will ever come up.
You can only estimate it and the estimate becomes more accurate the greater the sample size is relative to the population. E.g. if you test one missile out of fifty and it's a dud, I'm not sure you can say much about the total number of missiles that are. If you tested half of the missiles at random (25) and half of those (12) were duds then you could reasonably say that there were were 25 duds in total because you'd have established that half of the sample were duds so half the population likely is.
It is about the concept of statistical power. Statistical power tells you how certain you are for a test. You are right about the fact 2 is not enough of a sample to tell for sure. My opinion is that any time you have less than 30 tests you can't really be sure about how many. 30 is not an arbitrary value and it comes from the Central Limit Theorem. Two fucking up is enough to say there is a massive problem because of how reliable they are supposed to be but that is not a statistical evaluation. It also depends on how sure you want to be if you want 99% sure you would need more samples.
I am of the opinion that Statistics doesn't really tell you much unless you have 30 samples. Some people disagree and do all kinds of fancy tricks to try and make it work but I think they are basically wrong. Such small sample sizes do tell you something but it is similar to viewing a picture in really low resolution. Such a small sample size means you are not quantitative.